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

Shellhead wrote: The actor tells GQ magazine in its January issue that while filming a fight scene for the upcoming Blade Runner sequel, Blade Runner 2049, Harrison Ford accidentally punched him in the face.

Harrison Ford Thinks Ryan Gosling Should Be Grateful He Didn't Get Punched More
www.gq.com/story/harrison-ford-gq-cover-story-2017

“I punched Ryan Gosling in the face,” Ford said. “Ryan Gosling’s face was where it should not have been.”

According to Ford, the whole thing was “90 percent” Gosling’s fault because he did not get out of the way during the ill-fated face bagging—and he also pointed out that Gosling should appreciate not having been punched more than that.

“His job was to be out of the range of the punch. My job was also to make sure that I pulled the punch. But we were moving, and the camera was moving, so I had to be aware of the angle to the camera to make the punch look good. You know, I threw about a hundred punches in the shooting of it, and I only hit him once,” he said.

Gosling also told GQ last year that, as an apology, Ford brought a bottle of Scotch to his dressing room. A nice gesture, for sure, and one that fits their working relationship—Ford clearly respects Gosling, especially for being a “fucking Mouseketeer” who’s been acting since he was a child. But surprisingly, the apology came with a catch. All Ford did was pour Gosling a glass... and then he left with the rest of the bottle. When asked about this, Ford didn’t skip a beat.

“What, did he fucking expect the whole bottle?”

Shellhead wrote: George Foreman just challenged Steven Segal to some sort of fight. Foreman will be boxing and he said Segal can fight however he likes as long as there are no weapons.

Anyway, I had to check IMDB to be sure, but I've never seen a Steven Segal movie. I've seen previews, but none of them looked good enough to see in the theater and I never got around to watching them as rentals, either. One time I was on a date, and the woman invited me back to her place to watch Under Siege, but we ended up not watching it because bow-chicka-wow-wow.

Some Seagal movies are good, including Under Siege. I'm sure both gentlemen are well past their prime, but at least back in the day, Seagal would crush Foreman.

Sagrilarus wrote:

"Which is not something I’m going to explain, at least as far as it relates to the story. The studio has been unusually insistent in its pleas to critics not to reveal plot points. That’s fair enough, but it’s also evidence of how imaginatively impoverished big-budget movies have become. Like any great movie, Mr. Scott’s “Blade Runner” cannot be spoiled. It repays repeated viewing because its mysteries are too deep to be solved and don’t depend on the sequence of events. Mr. Villeneuve’s film, by contrast, is a carefully engineered narrative puzzle, and its power dissipates as the pieces snap into place. As sumptuous and surprising as it is from one scene to the next, it lacks the creative excess, the intriguing opacity and the haunting residue of its predecessor."

From the NY Times review of Blade Runner 2049 (A.O. Scott)

hotseatgames wrote: Some Seagal movies are good, including Under Siege. I'm sure both gentlemen are well past their prime, but at least back in the day, Seagal would crush Foreman.

Please tell me this is sarcasm.

cranberries wrote:

Sagrilarus wrote:

"Which is not something I’m going to explain, at least as far as it relates to the story. The studio has been unusually insistent in its pleas to critics not to reveal plot points. That’s fair enough, but it’s also evidence of how imaginatively impoverished big-budget movies have become. Like any great movie, Mr. Scott’s “Blade Runner” cannot be spoiled. It repays repeated viewing because its mysteries are too deep to be solved and don’t depend on the sequence of events. Mr. Villeneuve’s film, by contrast, is a carefully engineered narrative puzzle, and its power dissipates as the pieces snap into place. As sumptuous and surprising as it is from one scene to the next, it lacks the creative excess, the intriguing opacity and the haunting residue of its predecessor."

From the NY Times review of Blade Runner 2049 (A.O. Scott)

Ridley Scott really damaged Blade Runner with his statements ten years on, when he was looking to generate income from its re-edits. To some extent the film doesn't carry the weight it did, at least from a story perspective due to his muddy message. It's a good film and I'll see the sequel, but regardless of how the new film handles Deckard it will be tainted by Scott's open, inconsisent mouth.

In the early 90s one of the web pages I frequently visited was about Blade Runner, and the flaws inherent in the film due to nightly rewrites that didn't maintain continuity. But on first or second viewing the film was sound, and could stand on its own. Looking too deeply into the details revealed issues that changed the film's impact for me personally. But I still appreciate the pacing, the beauty, the vision it presented. It's my kind of science fiction.

Yep. He wrecked it a little. I still like it though. In my head there's a version with:

• NO dream sequence
• YES Gaff's taunt
• YES Vangelis
• NO voiceovers
• NO Shining shots

It's great!

Hey, fuck off with the Vangelis already

Watched this movie about a guy in a trenchcoat walking very slowly around highly detailed environments, while you're supposed to be pondering important ponderings on the nature of humanity and stuff.
The first 20 minutes I was completely hooked and it felt like a real deal, right until Jared Leto made his appearance. He doesn't take much of screen time, but makes count every second of it. There's a long subplot lifted from another not so old Oscar-nominated movie, with one scene being an almost copy paste from that one.

Harrison Ford is doing basically the same extended cameo as in the Force Awakens, and very exposition heavy, as well. I didn't buy him as older Deckard at all. And talking about exposition, they make sure to spell everything of importance several times. It is not a dumb movie per se, but if you feel like you need repeated viewings to get it, you probably won't pass a Voight-Kampff test. And it doesn't add anything meaningful to the whole philosophical thing. It does more world-building, and it is pretty consistent with the first film in that regard. It's also really fucking long, in particular for what it is and has to say (not much). Could be easily edited to 90 minutes, or not made at all.
It is quite visually impressive, but way too clean compared to the original. And I didn't like the clothing at all, it is very drab for most part.

It (Blade Runner 2049) was fucking good. I'll go again but in IMAX.

I just watched the original theatrical release of Blade Runner for probably the first time in 20 years and boy does it hold up well. Some of the filming details are just superb, a level of effort I haven't seen in a decade or more. Ridley Scott really knows how to work a camera.

I had a copy of the director's cut on VHS that I probably watched 10 or 12 times either all the way through or in pieces. I had seen it in one of the few theaters showing it when it came out (had to drive to Dupont Circle in DC to see it) and in some ways it improved, but it made a mess of other things. The original is really much tighter, especially on the bigger thematic aspects. Definitely wrth a look for those of you that have only watched the Director's Cut, or the redo that came after that.

The unicorn at the end had a completely different meaning in the original film. Scott mucked that up in the re-edit.

People get on Lucas for rewriting Star Wars, Scott committed the same crime.

I watched I don't feel at home in this world anymore, which is on Netflix. It is about a woman who is getting fed up with society, and then her house gets burglarized. This pushes her over the edge, and she teams up with her neighbor (Elijah Wood) to get some justice.

It is funny, sometimes violent, and has a lot of heart. Well worth watching.

Trawling Prime last night for something to watch and I came across Society, a 1989 Brian Yuzna (credits include Reanimator and Honey, I Shrunk the Kids) film. I had seen in sometime in the early 1990s, a VHS dub off a Japanese laserdisc so it was grainy and hard to watch. It left an impression on me though, and I actually had it in mind recently when I saw Get Out- it's a very similar film, really, and I would not be surprised to hear the director of Get Out say that it was influential.
It's a sort of black comedy/satire about a kid in Beverly Hills that doesn't quite fit in with, well, society. At least the upper crust sort of society he was born into. He has it all- sports, a jeep, girls, good looks, popularity- but something is just off. This leads into a rather shocking dissection of the lifestyles of the wealthy and what they get up to behind closed doors. It's actually quite good- some of it is a little doofy in that late 80s, B-movie way and there is some terrible comic relief. The satire is REALLY on the nose, but it seems even more relevant today.

At the risk of spoiling it a bit, be advised that this is a GORE FILM. Full on body horror. The effects are INSANE. Barring The Thing, I don't know if I've ever seen more bizarre, dysmorphic horror effects. They are really inventive, disgusting, and unlike anything you've ever seen. Think about some of the human figures in Dali's paintings- that's where we're going with this stuff. It's all Screaming Mad George work, so it has that tactile, pliable feel. All practical of course. Seriously, there are a couple of shots in this movie that are just about as weird and out there as it gets, and they are also quite thematic given the themes of the film. The credit at the beginning of the film is "Surrealistic Makeup Effects by Screaming Mad George". Makes sense.

Not a great movie- it is somewhat clunky, obvious and not particularly well-acted, but it is a good one to watch if you like 80s/90s horror with a social bite.

I also tried to watch Warcraft. I really tried. Like 4 times. I figured that if it's directed by David Bowie's son, the guy that directed Moon, there has to be something there. There isn't. It's almost unwatchably bad. The funny thing is if it were JUST Orcs, it probably would have been better. The humans and the hot/lame half-orc spoil the whole thing. I kept wanting to say "well, it's about as good as Krull"...but it isn't.

Good to know Society is on Prime. I've been wanting to watch that one for a while. Thanks for the write up.
I've been in horror movie mode since late August. Halloween is my favorite time of the year and I try to stretch it out as long as humanly possible. I've watched tons of horror movies, but here a few that have stuck out.

Get Out - I finally got a chance to see this one. I loved every second of it. Just a brilliant and well made little horror shocker. I sort of figured out what was happening fairly early on, but by the end there still some surprises I would have never saw coming. Highly recommended!

Chopping Mall - I LOVE 80s horror movies. They're usually filled with gratituious violence, nudity, non-sensical plots, amazing music, and great practical effects. Chopping Mall has all of the above and more! It's essentially a body count slasher film except the villains are evil killer robots. I'm fairly certain it's a rule that Killer Robots make everything better. The soundtrack sounds like something out of an Electronic Arts Sega Genesis game...and I love it. This is a cult classic that is a must see for fans of B movies. Watch it with a crowd of people and lots of alcohol! I don't think it's even 80 minutes long.

The Lair of the White Worm - A very strange film about a fictional Snake God being resurrected. A Ken Russell film that is loosely based on the Bram Stoker novel of the same name. The film is total nonsense, but it has a wonderful British/Scottish charm about it. Plus, the woman who plays the antagonist just totally GOES FOR IT. She plays a salacious snake woman like she is trying to win a fucking Academy Award. Not a great movie, but man...everyone is really giving it there all despite the ridiculous plot. Not for everybody, but seekers of a particular level of cinematic trash will want to give it a watch.

Child's Play - I picked up the newly released complete Child's Play set on Blu Ray. I plan on making my way through all 7 films this October. The first film holds up remarkably well. It's pretty well acted (Brad Douriff is spectacular as Chucky), has a uneasy vibe to it, and the practical effects/animatronic work is incredible. Seriously, this movie is a prime example of why Hollywood should have never abandoned practical special effects. It's almost a long lost art at this point. Anyways, pretty excited to continue on to Part 2 soon!

Vampire Circus - I love me some Hammer Horror! Vampire Circus is one of their stranger offerings that I had never seen before. I'm glad I finally decided to watch it, because it's such a unique film. I go into more depth on this one over at The Wolfman's Lounge. Check it out:

wolfmanslounge.com/2017/10/07/vampire-circus-1971/

Oh yes, Vampire Circus is one of the great Hammer films, no doubt. By the time it came out in '72, it was becoming evident that the Hammer formula was running out of steam, even though barely a year earlier they turned out Twins of Evil, which I hold as one of the very top films they ever made and one of Peter Cushing's best performances ever (it was filmed immediately after the death of his wife, which lends a gravitas to the role). But they were also at this point limping through feeble (but not altogether un-fun) programmers like Lust for a Vampire and the somewhat misguided Countess Dracula (which was actually released as a support feature for Vampire Circus). They started trying some new things like the psychological horror of Demons of the Mind. But with Vampire Circus, they went for something slightly weirder, more erotic, more bizarre. In some ways, it reminds me more of Tod Browning than Terence Fisher- this is the kind of movie Browning might have made in the 1970s, and I've often wondered if that was what Robert Young was intentionally aiming for.

For many years, this was one of the tougher Hammer films to track down despite its relatively positive reception...I knew of it only from reading about it in books and stills, but when I finally got hold of a bootleg it didn't disappoint.

Fun fact- Lalla Ward, who played the 2nd Romana to the 4th Doctor, is in it along with David Prowse...who played some guy in a space movie.

Another fun fact- some recent films people may not realize are Hammer films- Let Me In and The Woman in Black.

Lair of the White Worm is GREAT. SNAKE VAMPIRES. Such a fucked up, sexed-out movie, and it's one of the -more accessible- Ken Russell flims. I actually saw it in the theater...my parents went to see something else and I wanted to see this because I had seen it reviewed on Siskel and Ebert. I was like 13 maybe? Anyway, it is obviously not a "great" film for a 13 year old to see but it made a huge impression. And I knew about the Lampton Worm, so I thought that was pretty neat.

And ANOTHER Doctor Who connection- Peter Capaldi, the 13th Doctor is in it.

The Halloween pictures I'm hoping to get around to:
Company of Wolves
The Black Cat (the Edgar G. Ulmer one, not the Fulci one)
The Beyond
Curse of the Werewolf
They Come At Night
Mama
Inferno (been a while since I've seen it)

Thinking about rounding up all the Roger Corman Poe films from the DVD vault downstairs, they make for great Halloween viewing.

Michael Barnes wrote: Another fun fact- some recent films people may not realize are Hammer films- Let Me In and The Woman in Black.

The Woman in Black is great; such a cool setting with the haunted house being all by itself in that marsh. My litmus test for whether or not I can tolerate a haunted house movie is if it's still interesting after it's revealed why the house is haunted. TWiB and The Changeling are two films that pass that test very well, and both have great endings.