RealityChuck

I made it.

October 1, 1961. Yogi Berra and Carl Yastrzemski were the only HOFers playing, though Mickey Mantle and Whitey Ford were on the roster.

Four HRs in a game made this happen.

Solving A 61-Year-Old Mets Mystery

Not sure where you got that. They both are about someone who wants to play music, but whose family disapproves. The protagonist ends up going into the land of the dead and has to make his way back. In addition, The Book of Life actually has something important to say about life. Not to mention that Book of Life is far more imaginative in all respects, avoiding the cookie-cutter plotting of most Disney films, and has far more distinctive animation.

OK, but pales in comparison to the much superior Book of Life, which used the same themes.

Loved the movie. Still keep remembering this scene. Paul Dooley was wonderful. [YOUTUBE]fQaavQNGsMY[/YOUTUBE]

One of the better superhero films. Things looked far better in animation than the do in CGI. Plus you had a good story and they kept the fight scenes to a minimum.

Vic Sage wrote: it was turned into a great musical, SHE LOVES ME, with a lovely score by Bock & Harnick (Fiddler on the Roof) Plus In the Good Old Summertime, also a musical.

Pretty good film, though I think you need to be South African to get all the nuance. For instance, the name of the main character is generally used in jokes about stupid South Africans (think Polish jokes -- they are "van der Merwe" jokes in Afrikaans).

Edgy MD wrote: =RealityChuck post_id=3400 time=1551107235 user_id=82]“Bohemian Rhapsody” -- Queen and Freddy Mercury don't mean much to many in the academy. I think Bryan Singer's sexuality was a whole lot more problematic. I certainly hope so.

The lack of a host was a good idea. Instead of the host coming on for irrelevant "humourous" bits that extended the show, they kept everything moving; it was the tightest Oscar telecast in years, and that was after they allowed the Best Actor/Actress winners ramble on for far more time than usual (I think they were worrying that they might finish too early). I only saw a handful of the films, so I can't comment on Green Book, but I can see the objections. In a year where cultural representation was big,* it's surprising the Academy was willing to go for it. Still, most of the other films had their "flaws," while Green Book worked as a well-made film with a message, something the Academy has always loved. It's also due to a flaw in the voting method. The Academy uses a simple plurality of votes. When you have eight films, that means a film could theoretically win with only 13% of the vote. If it gets 25%, it's a shoo-in. But that means 75% of the voters thought another film was better. So it's quite likely a majority of the academy understood the issues with Green Book, but the minority that didn't were enough to vote it in. Here are the "flaws" that voters might have caused them to vote for Green Book (Note: I am not necessarily agreeing with these, just showing the thinking involved) “Black Panther” -- superhero film “BlacKkKlansman” -- Spike Lee is something of a polarizing figure. “Bohemian Rhapsody” -- Queen and Freddy Mercury don't mean much to many in the academy. Mercury's sexuality also might be an issue. “The Favourite” -- too bawdy “Green Book” “Roma” -- isn't based on a strong plot (silly reason) and isn't in English. IIRC, no foreign language film has ever won. “A Star Is Born” -- The third remake of the story. I don't think a remake has ever won. “Vice” -- too political (and events were too recent). Remember, it doesn't take a lot of voters to be turned off to a film for any of these reasons. I think that Green Book will go into history as a bad choice, but then, some movies people think were bad choices were really quite good ones. *It was the main reason that Black Panther was so well regarded. I think it's great that there was a Black superhero and the way the characters were portrayed (when they were portrayed as anything other than punching machines) was a step forward, but the story was as cliched and predictable as any other superhero film (if you wonder why Oscar doesn't like them, it's because they all have the same plot). It's the Jackie Robinson of superhero films -- if Jackie Robinson couldn't hit above the Mendoza line.

Brilliant bit of historical comedy. Who needs accuracy when something like this is made? One of the best movies of the year.

My wife loves it. I think it's mediocre at best. Cloyingly sentimental and a plot that was just plain nonsense (a retired general is not going to go bankrupt; he could get a job just about anywhere in an eyeblink*). The score is most filler, too. Holiday Inn, despite the blackface, is a better film. The story is cliched, but the songs are better and it's funnier. Plus you have Fred Astaire, who, when he read the script for White Christmas not only turned it down, but asked to be released from his contract with Paramount. But it better than the stage musical version, which surgically removes everything in the movie that wasn't awful. *Maybe even Commissioner of Baseball.

Centerfield wrote: RealityChuck wrote: Wonder Woman gave me hope that a superhero film could be something important (even if the final fight scene was a mistake). After hearing the reviews, I thought this might be going down that path. Alas, it went right for the cookie-cutter. Agreed. Completely cookie-cutter. I mean, once you've seen one movie that celebrates black and African culture, smashes stereotypes, features a minority lead, with a minority-led cast, portrays its black characters as compassionate, powerful, educated and sophisticated rather than two dimensional stereotypes, empowers a generation of African-American kids who no longer have to be told "You can't be Superman, he's not black" and shoots down the idea that a movie with a non-white cast can't be a box office smash, basically you've seen them all. Yes, it's great to see black actors as superheroes; that's why I gave it a 3 instead of something lower. But the writers stopped thinking after that and just ran out the cliches. It's just another superhero film, just with a black cast. Completely by the numbers, even when it made no sense to go that way (did anyone really think he was killed by that fall?). Wonder Woman at least tried to say something. There was nothing close to the "no man's land" scene in Black Panther, just the same story that's been done a million times. Hero emerges, fights villain -- once to a draw, the second time losing, and the third time winning (with, of course, the people who refused to get involved show up at the last minute to save the day). It's one reason most superhero films are boring. The fight scenes were tedious (the first one in the pool was a complete waste of time -- was there any doubt as to how it would end? -- and terribly contrived ("Let's take away his powers for a few minutes so we can stage it!")) and went on far too long and so CGI laden that nothing's at stake. You want to see the concept done with some imagination, watch Black Lightning, which deals with real issues, both socially and in the realm of character development.