Frayed Knot

Willets Point wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: Have we reached the point now to where there's a new Spiderman movie once a month? Seems that way to me. I feel that way about Transformers movies. It's like they've become a monthly magazine. I assume this movie here will be followed by -- SPIDER-MAN: Far From Over; 2020 (or possibly just later in the year 2019)

Have we reached the point now to where there's a new Spiderman movie once a month? Seems that way to me.

Edgy MD wrote: The thing is that it was supposedly a great year for films, but between what I've seen in the theatres, and what my download services have been offering me, I ain't quite seeing it. Nor did there seem to be the same bevy of Oscar bait flicks in December as there usually is.

Not that I'm even the smallest bit Asian ... but I've long had an aversion to plots where the (usually related) characters are mostly loud, obnoxious, and generally just people you wouldn't want to spend 10 minutes with much less your life or even a holiday. But the movie is then passed off with the reasoning that because these characters are all [insert ethnicity here] that all these obnoxious traits become quite charming and humorous. Ummm, no they don't. Not sure how closely CRA follows this trend, but I'm not all that anxious to find out. Just my two Yen.

Looks like I checked in with a whopping total of seven this year (it's possible I'm missing a couple) so I've decided to make my list a Top-Seven In rough order of good-ness DEATH OF STALIN A QUIET PLACE JULIET, NAKED READY PLAYER ONE FIRST MAN LEAVE NO TRACE CHAPPAQUIDDICK

Recently re-saw this one, and I'm going with 'pretty damn funny'. Except as it got more serious towards the end, but at that point it needed to considering where the story was headed. Although at the very, very end I hope all who saw it caught the scene where Khrushchev is in the concert hall listening to the very same pianist from earlier and the crawl is describing how he would go on to consolidate power by 1953 and run the country until he himself was disposed by Brezhnev in '64 ... and right behind him in the audience is a younger guy with really thick and dark eyebrows staring at the back of his head with an 'I'm coming after you old man' look on his face. Nice touch. So, yeah, probably my favorite of this past year also.

I see a second vote has been cast, so it appears that I'm not the only one still kneeling in the piss here.

A somewhat less than historically accurate, but considerably more entertaining, account of the scramble for power in the days following Stalin's death in 1953 That Michael Palin, Jeffrey Tamboor and Steve Buchemi (as Nikita Krushchev) play members of the ruling elite here probably tells you the direction the movie is taking.

I never saw any of the THREE! previous versions of this story: - 1937: Frederic March, Janet Gaynor - 1954: James Mason, Judy Garland - 1976: Kris Kristofferon, Barbra Streisand which might just be a good thing in the long run as I've heard good things about this one and I just might get around to it. And at least Gaga isn't playing Gaga (doesn't even look like Gaga) as opposed, say, to Madonna who never wasn't playing Madonna in any of her various screen roles. Because, while I recognize LGG's talent, I tend to have an aversion to attention whores which makes me dislike both her 'character' and and suck-up media who can't seem to get enough of it. I wasn't particularly fond of Cher's early act (speaking of attention whores) but I thought she found her best niche in serious acting [sILKWOOD, MASK, MOONSTRUCK] so maybe this one will also find a second career that doesn't make me want to turn away from her constant 'Look at ME!' act. Plus I still can't hear her 'name' without it bringing up the Letterman line about her only getting that title upon marrying Lord Gaga

Sounds a bit like 2013's BEGIN AGAIN, where a past-his-prime hipster record company man, Mark Ruffalo, tries to lure shy singer/songwriter Keira Knightly into recording her music and, in turn, tries to form a connection with his hipster daughter in the process. This one, from the Irish writer/director Jim Carney known for his music movies [sING STREET; ONCE], wasn't bad

I enjoyed the book as well, and I think the movie did it justice. Funny at times, charming in others, faithful to the story with a few added notions. The two leads are good, and Hawke is fine as the re-emergent object of Duncan's obsession. He of course doesn't have to pull off 'Rock Star', merely a middle-aged, one-time brooding singer-songwriter type with more than his share of flaws. His character does sing once although does a Kinks tune rather than one of his own.

Only the songs are naked, and you don't really hear those anyway. Nor, by the way, is there anyone in it named Juliet. So just like Alice's Restaurant is not the name of the restaurant it's just the name of the song, Juliet naked is just the name of the movie.

Rom-Com adapted from the 2009 Nick Hornby novel, one where Hornby plows some familiar ground for him of relationships, music, and relationships through music. Annie and Duncan live together in a small, nothing-ever-happens-here seaside town in England. But they’re in a rut and Annie is starting to think that maybe her time with Duncan have been wasted years due in no small part to him spending much of his time obsessing over, and running a chatroom about, an obscure American rock star and the supposed masterpiece album ‘Juliet’ he recorded many years earlier prior to dropping off the face of the earth. (a bunch of dudes spending all their time on line discussing a single topic … what a bunch of losers!!) But then a bootlegged, alternate version of the album -- dubbed 'Juliet, Naked' by the obsessed fan boyz for it's stripped-down version of the songs -- shows up in the mail and nothing will ever be the same. Rose Byrne & Chris O’Dowd as the couple, with Ethan Hawke as the mysterious musician Tucker Crowe

I guess you could label it a sci-fi film since it involves aliens and a post-apocalyptic near-future. But that's mostly just the set-up; the plot plays out more like a horror flick: Are they in the house? ... will this maneuver buy us some time? ... How can they be killed?...

And a well-spoken young lad he is.

i don't usually watch horror films, but this one sounded unique so i gave it a try. -- Yup I'm glad i did. -- Yup

I like how the shadowing over the kids' faces hides their eyes enough to where those images can't be captured by facial recognition software and so a life of crime is still a viable option for either one of them. Well done if that was the intent. (whataya mean IF, of course it was)

The aliens have shown up and they're not at all nice. The good news is that they're blind. The bad is that they hunt by sound and they're very good at it. ' They're fast, they're vicious, and they'll rip your lungs out, Jim. So one has to be vewy, vewy, qwiet. Fortunately the featured family in this film knows sign language due to having a deaf daughter. But, as you can imagine, it's not so easy to raise young children under those circumstances. Y'know what's even tougher? Giving birth under those circumstances! John Krasinski and Emily Blunt stretch their skills to play a married couple. Basically the movie is them, couple of young 'uns, and a few ugly lookin' critters. In English and Sign Language with English subtitles, although the amount of dialog in this one makes JEREMIAH JOHNSON sound downright chatty. 90 minutes

Now that I think about it, I did see the most recent incarnation (three years ago - whatever version that was). We had just completed the sale of my mother's house and my sister and I were leaving the next morning with the cable/phone/internet/etc. already cut off. So the latest MI was at the local and we killed the night there. A fun ride? Yeah, maybe. But I remember nothing about the movie today and that was probably true the morning afterward as well ... and therein lies the problem with that series. oe: and I also wondered how Tom Cruise was injured worse, during the stunt itself or in falling over himself to let the news accidentally leak out that he was injured doing his own stunts.

Was a big fan of the TV show way back when. Didn't particularly like the first movie and haven't revisited since.

It's why I rarely watch sequels. If I didn't like the original then I have no interest in seeing the story continued. And if I did like it then I don't want a sequel to diminish the original. I also tend not to get all that excited at remakes for similar reasons. There are exceptions to both but not a lot. In another thread a few of us were discussing recent Taylor Sheridan films. The consensus seemed to be that HELL OR HIGH WATER was terrific, WIND RIVER less so but still good, and SICARIO a messy disappointment. So naturally [u:7o4mqauu]SICARIO 2[/u:7o4mqauu] is the one coming to a theatre near you.

41Forever wrote: Hawkeye needs his own movie! There have been several: [fimg=200]http://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/37200000/Nathaniel-Poe-Hawkeye-the-last-of-the-mohicans-37205875-500-575.jpg[/fimg] [fimg=300]https://www.bestmoviesbyfarr.com/static-assets/images/articles/background/2014/07/2-k5uf9x.jpg[/fimg]

We've now had several mentions in the past few days about movies that should NOT have been remade but were anyway with mostly predictable (read: bad) results. Which seemed like as good a reason as any for a new topic. A couple of days ago I mentioned the recent incarnation of DEATH WISH. Now I haven't seen the new one, in part because I believe it opened and closed on the same afternoon but also because I had no intention of doing so. Not that the Charles Bronson original was great cinema which screamed not to even try to be equaled. But at least it was done at a time when random, urban street crime was much more of a fear than it is for most people today and when angry guys with guns wasn't a topic in the news seemingly twice a week. And of course few were better than Bronson at playing the strong silent type, so that even if this Bruce Willis version were a good movie it would be one with real bad timing and the near single-digit ratings on 'Rotten Tomatoes' suggests that it wasn't a well done version either. Coming this August is a new version of PAPILLON, the original of which WAS a good movie with top stars [1973 - Steve McQueen, Dustin Hoffman] and not one that suggests it's in need of a reworking. I've never heard of the leads in this coming version, which by itself doesn't mean it'll be inferior but I guess we'll see in a few months (or, like DEATH WISH, maybe no one will see). TAKING OF PELHAM 1-2-3 [1974 - Walter Matthau, Robert Shaw; 2009 - John Travolta, Denzel Washington] No, just no. Even if the editing DIDN'T manage to clearly show Shea Stadium out the window of the runaway train as it made its way from lower Manhattan into Brooklyn, remaking this one was still neither a good idea nor was it good execution. THE SECRET LIFE OF WALTER MITTY [1947 - Danny Kaye; 2013 - Ben Stiller] How'd that one work out in the old box office, Ben? Bet it's been erased from the resume you use whenever you go job hunting too. Also from another thread: dgwphotography wrote: Has anyone killed two remakes (that shouldn't have been made) like Matthew Broderick? I assume he's talking about THE PRODUCERS and CHRISTMAS STORY LIVE, although at least that last one was a TV movie and not a theatre release. Or maybe he had another one in mind. Also, how about Denzel deciding to hitch his wagon to re-dos of TAKING OF PELHAM (see above), MAGNIFICENT SEVEN (2016), and THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE (2004) !!!!! What's up with that DW, trouble finding any real work!?!

I'm with Seo's complaint -- ** still in spoiler alert mode here ** -- about the guy who threatened her with knowledge of the specific crime and, days later, was still in town and was overheard bragging about being complicit in what was apparently some sort of similar crime, yet was eventually passed off as some random guy from 1,500 miles away just passing through town. The only other explanation was that his vaguely referred to gov't/military connections were so important that the feds were able to intervene and falsify the information in order to make it look like he wasn't the guy when he actually was, but now we're getting into tinfoil hat territory. That and Rockwell's pre-redemption character being just too stupid for words.

My revised list. Wasn't any easier doing it the second time as compared to the first, but perhaps it's more 'accurate' ... whatever that means. Let's put a March 31st deadline on this for anyone who either hasn't contributed but wants to, or anyone who wants to update/adjust your existing list. If you do update then re-enter your list (as opposed to just editing it) so I'll see that you made changes. We'll put this thing into the books on April 1 30 - deGROM -- clearly the best pitcher in the lot and the only one on the team to have a good season AND go wire to wire with it 29 - CONFORTO -- best Runs Created on the squad, and even missing the final month he was 4th on the team in PA 28 - BRUCE -- kinda sad when the guy they tried to deal pre-season and then did deal at mid-season was the second best player 27 - CESPEDES 26 - REED 25 - DUDA 24 - GRANDERSON 23 - CABRERA 22 - REYES -- nice 2nd half saved him and earned him a re-up 21 - BLEVINS 20 - WALKER 19 - d'ARNAUD 18 - LUGO -- Actually the second best starter ERA on the team 17 - SEAWALD 16 - FLORES 15 - NIMMO -- decent production/small sample 14 - WHEELER -- 2nd best starter had a 5.21 ERA 13 - TJ RIVERA -- if only he could actually play the field 12 - LAGARES -- if only he could hit 11 - GSELLMAN 10 - AOKI -- .371 OBA is nice fil-in work, even if only for 100 ABs 9 - MONTERO 8 - R. RIVERA 7 - PLAWECKI 6 - BRADFORD 5 - SYNDERGAARD -- leading the team in ERA (2.97) counts for something even if only over 30-some IP 4 - ROSARIO 3 - REYNOLDS 2 - SMITH 1 - HARVEY