What are you watching?

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Yeah, that was the best wpisode of F&WS yet. Solid action to start, strong character stuff to pull all the strands together. Some mystery with a new arrival.

And yeah....they didn’t balk when it came to the important stuff. Commendable.
 
Falcon and winter soldier - those mother fuckers for ending this episode there. Damn them. Yes, I loved it, but I’m going to punch that guy who made that cliffhanger decision in this face.

I just attempted to watch the animated Red Sonja: Queen of plagues. I have a high tolerance and I couldn’t make it 10 minutes. Holy shit it was bad.
 
Watched In a Lonely Place tonight.
1618713963656.png
I'm a sucker for film noir. This is an interesting one, with shades of Sunset Boulevard, Double Indemnity, and The Lady from Shanghai. Bogart is a little more villainous than usual, even sinister at times. The main point of tension - did he kill her? - is a little undone by the other obvious violent behavior - does it matter? Gloria Garhame is lovely. I'm sometimes surprised what these movies got away with.
These movies always make me wonder why it's not normal to have social calls at 1am anymore. I've got a case of tonic.
 
Watched In a Lonely Place tonight.
View attachment 29794
I'm a sucker for film noir. This is an interesting one, with shades of Sunset Boulevard, Double Indemnity, and The Lady from Shanghai. Bogart is a little more villainous than usual, even sinister at times. The main point of tension - did he kill her? - is a little undone by the other obvious violent behavior - does it matter? Gloria Garhame is lovely. I'm sometimes surprised what these movies got away with.
These movies always make me wonder why it's not normal to have social calls at 1am anymore. I've got a case of tonic.

Love this, quite different from the Dorothy Hughes novel it is based on and directed by the great Nicholas Ray, whose They Live by Night is one of my favourite noirs.

Watched Perdita Durango on Shudder, a delirous, surreal sex and violence filled fever-dream of a crime drama with Javier Bardem and Rosie Perez as psychotic lovers. The original novel is a sequel of sorts by Barry Gifford to his Wild at Heart and if anything this one manages to be even more organically weird and transgressive. And damn is Perez sexy.

 
So, I recently watched Room 237. It's a movie about fan theories regarding Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. As film analysis, it's garbage. But as a study of confirmation bias, it's amazing. Don't get me wrong, I'd love for some of these theories to be true, but no.

One cool theory that is fun, is that the movie has a lot of symmetry, in the same way issue 5 of Watchmen did. So, some visual artists have overlaid the film backwards on top of the film forwards. There is indeed a lot of pretty cool symmetry, but most of it is probably down to Kubrick framing most of his shots a certain way. That having been said, there are a few scenes that make you wonder if it was intentional.
 
So, I recently watched Room 237. It's a movie about fan theories regarding Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. As film analysis, it's garbage. But as a study of confirmation bias, it's amazing. Don't get me wrong, I'd love for some of these theories to be true, but no.

One cool theory that is fun, is that the movie has a lot of symmetry, in the same way issue 5 of Watchmen did. So, some visual artists have overlaid the film backwards on top of the film forwards. There is indeed a lot of pretty cool symmetry, but most of it is probably down to Kubrick framing most of his shots a certain way. That having been said, there are a few scenes that make you wonder if it was intentional.
Yeah that was a disappointing doc for me as I found most of the fan theories nonsense. It almost works better as a visual collage work/remix of the original's hypnotic visuals.

In that way it reminds me of the recent documentary on Showgirls, You Don't Nomi, which has some interesting insights and comments but get bogged down near the end in an obvious and moralist reading (an exploitation film is *gasp* exploititive?!!?).

But in terms of editing it is terrific.

 
Yeah that was a disappointing doc for me as I found most of the fan theories nonsense. It almost works better as a visual collage work/remix of the original's hypnotic visuals.

In that way it reminds me of the recent documentary on Showgirls, You Don't Nomi, which has some interesting insights and comments but get bogged down near the end in an obvious and moralist reading (an exploitation film is *gasp* exploititive?!!?).

But in terms of editing it is terrific.



Yeah the editing on Room 237 sux big. Sound is all over the place, and you can hear people's kids and pets in the background of their 2012 webcam mics.

Oh, and in case someone wants to check out the mashup of the forwards and backwards version of The Shining, you can stream it here:

 
So, I recently watched Room 237. It's a movie about fan theories regarding Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. As film analysis, it's garbage. But as a study of confirmation bias, it's amazing. Don't get me wrong, I'd love for some of these theories to be true, but no.

One cool theory that is fun, is that the movie has a lot of symmetry, in the same way issue 5 of Watchmen did. So, some visual artists have overlaid the film backwards on top of the film forwards. There is indeed a lot of pretty cool symmetry, but most of it is probably down to Kubrick framing most of his shots a certain way. That having been said, there are a few scenes that make you wonder if it was intentional.
I can think of only one case where anyone has given cans more unmerited importance than some people do when discussing The Shining.
200.gif
 
I can think of only one case where anyone has given cans more unmerited importance than some people do when discussing The Shining.
200.gif

I was disappointed that there wasn't more discussion of the film production itself.

For instance, Kubrick famously had Scatman Crothers repeat his 'Do you like ice-cream Doc?' line for an absurd number of takes. I can't locate the exact number online, although it was not the 127 takes he inflicted upon Duvall or the zoom in Crothers bedroom he did 60-70 times until Crothers broke down.

Why? Some have just chalked it up to his 'perfectionism' which considering the flawed nature of Nicholson's early performance I find hard to square. It seems compulsive and odd.

Now there was the great French director Bresson who often had trained actors do a scene again and again because he wanted them to break through their technique and become 'transparent' (one of the reasons he often used non-actors) but I've never read nor heard an explanation for Kubrick's approach here.
 
Last edited:
I was disappointed that there wasn't more discussion of the film production itself.

For instance, Kubrick famously had Scatman Crothers repeat his 'Do you like ice-cream Doc?' line for an absurd number of takes. I can't locate the exact number online, although it was not the 127 takes he inflicted upon Duvall or the zoom in Crothers bedroom he did 60-70 times until Crothers broke down.

Why? Some have just chalked it up to his 'perfectionism' which considering the flawed nature of Nicholson's early performance I find hard to square. It seems compulsive and odd.

Now there was the great French director Bresson who often had trained actors do a scene again and again because he wanted them to break through their technique and become 'transparent' (one of the reasons he often used non-actors) but I've never read nor heard an explanation for Kubrick's approach here.
There's a reason they didn't talk to anyone who wasn't actually involved with The Shining. Kubrick said the film wasn't supposed to make sense, and almost dismissively called it a ghost movie. People forget that he wanted to make a hit movie after Barry Lyndon. And one of the producers has likewise denied any "hidden meanings".

There are shots where the crew's reflection is visible. And in the opening shot, you can see the shadow of the helicopter. These are undeniable errors.

I think it's all probably just a case of an overworked OCD madman/genius trying to edit an insane number of takes into a single scene in the days before editing software.

I think there are some obvious symbols (mirrors and mazes) and themes (insanity, selfishness), but all of the so-called "hidden meanings" are probably just the products of an overactive imagination.

Still, the Forwards and Backwards version has some cool shit, like when
Grady tells Jack the he had to "correct" his daughters, which coincides with the flashes of them dead in the hallway from the scene where Danny is riding his tricycle through the hotel
.
 
Yesterday I announced I was taking a day off for reals and binged watched season one of dc’s legends of tomorrow. Pretty solid, but Hawkgirl’s acting was so bad it was apparent very early. I think they literally hired a barista. Actually, thinking about it now, it was more like the Hawk’s were a couple of porn actors trying to go “legit” and they got a full season on their credentials. Their story was not interesting and they were bad and making it so. Rest was good though.
 
Yesterday I announced I was taking a day off for reals and binged watched season one of dc’s legends of tomorrow. Pretty solid, but Hawkgirl’s acting was so bad it was apparent very early. I think they literally hired a barista. Actually, thinking about it now, it was more like the Hawk’s were a couple of porn actors trying to go “legit” and they got a full season on their credentials. Their story was not interesting and they were bad and making it so. Rest was good though.

Overall, I love Legends of Tomorrow and how it totally embraces the goofiness of superhero comics, but I definitely love season one less than the rest. Best thing about the later seasons, IMHO: the hawk-people aren't in them.
 
Yesterday I announced I was taking a day off for reals and binged watched season one of dc’s legends of tomorrow. Pretty solid, but Hawkgirl’s acting was so bad it was apparent very early. I think they literally hired a barista. Actually, thinking about it now, it was more like the Hawk’s were a couple of porn actors trying to go “legit” and they got a full season on their credentials. Their story was not interesting and they were bad and making it so. Rest was good though.
Get past the first season, and you'll appreciate it a lot better. The villain and the hawks were both dragging the whole thing down.
 
Overall, I love Legends of Tomorrow and how it totally embraces the goofiness of superhero comics, but I definitely love season one less than the rest. Best thing about the later seasons, IMHO: the hawk-people aren't in them.

Get past the first season, and you'll appreciate it a lot better. The villain and the hawks were both dragging the whole thing down.
This is what I understand. I’m looking forward to getting up to John Constantine, which I am very sad they cancelled. They had a bit of a fight ina museum or something online and he dodged by rotating through the floor, and I felt that was a very sorcerer way to dodge. As a person who played a sorcerer character in our last marvel game, I would have loved to think of that myself.
 
Last Friday, my wife and I watched Yellow Submarine. It was the first time I'd seen it since I was a kid and it appeared semi-regularly on T.V. I had forgotten just how odd it is and I was surprised that the Beatles did not voice their own characters (though in retrospect it's not surprising at all).

The DVD included some interviews with people associated with the production, one of them Erich Segal, who was called in at the last minute to do rewrites of the script. He's most famous for Love Story, but I didn't realize he was also a Classics professor. In the interview, he said "I had just finished editing a collection of essays on Euripides when the phone rang, and it was Al Brodax..."
 
Last edited:
Last Friday, my wife and I watched Yellow Submarine. It was the first time I'd seen it since I was a kid and it appeared semi-regularly on T.V. I had forgotten just how odd it is and I was surprised that the Beatles did not voice their own characters (though in retrospect it's not surprising at all).

The DVD included some interviews with people associated with the production, one of them Erich Segal, who was called in at the last minute to do rewrites of the script. He's most famous for Love Story, but I didn't realize he was also a Classics professor. In the interview, he said "I had just finished editing a collection of essays on Euripides when the phone rang, and it was Al Brodax..."
That monkey thing (?) made me cry as a kid. That scene where everything disappears (?) and he's left all by himself. I don't remember exactly how it went. I was very young and obviously not the target audience for animated psychedelic trippery. It's probably not meant to make you feel sad.
 
That monkey thing (?) made me cry as a kid. That scene where everything disappears (?) and he's left all by himself. I don't remember exactly how it went. I was very young and obviously not the target audience for animated psychedelic trippery. It's probably not meant to make you feel sad.
That would be Jeremy Hillary Boob, who is introduced as the 'Nowhere Man,' while that song is playing. I think you are supposed to feel sorry for him, though things turn out well in the end. Oddly, I had completely forgotten him, though my wife said he was what she remembered the most. Here he is:
Jeremy_Hillary_Boob,_Ph.D._in_'Yellow_Submarine'_(1968).jpg
 
That would be Jeremy Hillary Boob, who is introduced as the 'Nowhere Man,' while that song is playing. I think you are supposed to feel sorry for him, though things turn out well in the end. Oddly, I had completely forgotten him, though my wife said he was what she remembered the most. Here he is:
View attachment 29905
Hah, he doesn't look much like a monkey at all, and he's actually a bit creepy.

Anyway, the worst of it was that my parents did not see my reaction coming and were caught completely off guard. So their reaction, in turn, was not exactly appropriate, with my dad barely suppressing a snigger. Parents.... can't live with 'm, can't live without 'm. I've long suspected my dad of having Asperger but at the time I had no idea so it came off as rather unfeeling.
 
Last edited:
Watched The Passage on Disney+. It was surprisingly good as I heard practically nothing about it when it was on Fox. Based on Justin Cronin's huge trilogy about a vampire virus that wipes out most of humanity this first and only season just covers the genesis of the virus outbreak but I found it pacey and well acted, with the guy from Saved by the Bell (which I never watched) and the young central protagonist and the head vampire all being top notch.

A shame it got cancelled as there is a huge time jump in the first novel that the series stays true to that is definitely intriguing. Have long heard of the novels I've now added them to my Audible wishlist (three 30 hr+ novels!) so I can find out what happens next.

 
Did a horror double feature last night of the 2019 Child's Play remake and the The Midnight Man. I never saw the original Child's Play, so I can't compare them, but I found this version entertaining enough. Aubrey Plaza was delightful, as ever, and Mark Hamill was great as the voice of Chucky. The Midnight Man did a good job of building tension throughout, and had some stunning visuals, but occasionally suffered from "characters will make nonsensical decisions because the plot needs them to" syndrome. Robert Englund played one of the secondary characters, which was fun.
 
Last edited:
Watched this short film, about a dude taking care of his dying mom. Was pretty good. It's only 15 minutes long & free to watch.

 
Re: Invincible Episode 7

Damn. Best episode yet. This show keeps hitting new heights.

I may not have the nostalgic connection I do to Spider-man, but this is seriously starting to compete with Spectacular for best animated adaption of a comic, if not best comicbook adaption period.
 
That was actually really good. And written by Jennette McCurdy from iCarly!

Indeed! According to her podcast she has retired from acting and is focused on writing and directing now.

I like the moments of black humor that are in Kenny alongside the serious stuff.
 
A couple of nights ago I caught a bit of Keeper of the Flame on broadcast. Its a 1942 Spencer Tracy-Katharine Hepburn film, directed by George Cukor (who disliked it). I guess it stirred up a lot of kerfuffle at the time for having a somewhat left-wing political message. About all I saw was Hepburn's big speech, late in the movie, when we find out what the secret of her dead husband actually was. Despite having that 'spoiled' I'm still interested in seeing the whole thing some time.

Keeper_of_the_flame.jpg
 
Just watched the last FWS and they landed it nicely.

They did the damn thing! I haven't been so excited about something in a long time- and the way he used the shield- just like in the comics! Different than Steve to show different strengths of the indestrictible frisbee. I admit- I sqeeed when he landed in full costume. And the way they wrapped everything else up- I loved this much better than WandaVision, and I loved WandaVision. Damn... they're hitting these D+ tv shows out of the park!
 
That was a great season finale for Apple TV's For all Mankind. An excellent alternate history series where the Soviet Union beat the US to the Moon.
 
Got sucked into watching something dumb by YouTube's algorithm. It was video entitled something like "10 things on VicTORIous that made no sense." In all 10 (or however many it was) cases, yeah, they were things that wouldn't make sense in real life, but all made sense in the context of the show for the very simple reason of "because comedy."
 
Got sucked into watching something dumb by YouTube's algorithm. It was video entitled something like "10 things on VicTORIous that made no sense." In all 10 (or however many it was) cases, yeah, they were things that wouldn't make sense in real life, but all made sense in the context of the show for the very simple reason of "because comedy."
It is amazing how bad YT is for film commentary. Most of it is Brain Dead and film illiterate.
 
It is amazing how bad YT is for film commentary. Most of it is Brain Dead and film illiterate.
A lot is actively wrong too. I saw an interview with the Cinema Sins guys. Their background is in search engine optimization. Before starting the channel, their research showed that mistakes in a video were the thing most likely to drive responses, and responses to videos boost the ranking of the the Youtube algorithm. Therefore, they determined that they needed to have around 20% of what they presented be either wrong or at least something fans would strongly disagree with to keep their comments high.

Film commentary is beside the point.
 
Just watched the last FWS and they landed it nicely.

They did the damn thing! I haven't been so excited about something in a long time- and the way he used the shield- just like in the comics! Different than Steve to show different strengths of the indestrictible frisbee. I admit- I sqeeed when he landed in full costume. And the way they wrapped everything else up- I loved this much better than WandaVision, and I loved WandaVision. Damn... they're hitting these D+ tv shows out of the park!
Overall I was really happy with the episode, I think for the most part they managed to stick the landing. Mackie is just soooo damned good, and he really pulled off the big speech they gave him. I wasn't certain how well the combo of the wings and shield would look - in the comics they didn't always mesh that well together visually - but here I think they pulled it off. My only real complaint is how they handled Sharon but I'm allowing that given some of the stuff that is supposed to be building up next in the MCU that maybe she is actually a Skrull?
 
It is amazing how bad YT is for film commentary. Most of it is Brain Dead and film illiterate.

A lot is actively wrong too. I saw an interview with the Cinema Sins guys. Their background is in search engine optimization. Before starting the channel, their research showed that mistakes in a video were the thing most likely to drive responses, and responses to videos boost the ranking of the the Youtube algorithm. Therefore, they determined that they needed to have around 20% of what they presented be either wrong or at least something fans would strongly disagree with to keep their comments high.

Film commentary is beside the point.



I tend to avoid Youtube videos in the form of "lists" of any sort.

There are some quality reviewers on there, but a lot of dross to wade through to get to them.

Some of my favourites include

Rob Ager
Reinstall Paul
Real Dimensional Pictures
Supereyepatchwolf
Film Joy
Entertain the Elk

I used to like Lindsey Ellis, but she kinda fell off the deep end a few years ago. I gave up on her when she posted a defense of Twilight "because it was written by a girl"

And I love Red Letter Media, but not because they provide any deep insights
 
Overall I was really happy with the episode, I think for the most part they managed to stick the landing. Mackie is just soooo damned good, and he really pulled off the big speech they gave him. I wasn't certain how well the combo of the wings and shield would look - in the comics they didn't always mesh that well together visually - but here I think they pulled it off. My only real complaint is how they handled Sharon but I'm allowing that given some of the stuff that is supposed to be building up next in the MCU that maybe she is actually a Skrull?

Yeah it was very good overall. I thought they handled the topic of race in a way that made sense and worked in the story. My one complaint would have been some of the stuff with Sharon, but I think you have it exactly right with your spoiler.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top