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.

Saw it last night. I wasn't impressed and it didn't come close to its hype. I was expecting something more than just a routine superhero film. I found the fight scenes overlong and boring. The chase scene might have been good if it had been an actual chase scene instead of one that was CGI enhanced. Aside from one twist, the plot was completely predictable, by-the-book filmmaking. 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.

Flat, dull and even more predictable than the previous one (which copied the original beat for beat). It was a franchise, not a movie. Better than any of the prequels, but still not particularly good.

It was OK, but not up to the standard Brad Bird has set for himself. In that was, it was like Early Man, where Nick Park did a perfectly good movie, but one that just wasn't up to his best.

The issue is this: movies are expensive to make, and ticket prices keep increasing. The investment in a film is so immense, that producers get nervous on anything new or different. They worry that the movie won't find an audience, that the concept won't draw enough money to make back their money. So they lean toward properties that people recognize. It's easier to market a film with a familiar name or character, so they look for familiar names and characters. Audience look at the cost of a ticket and also want assurance they'll like it. If they recognize the franchise/remake, they know what they're getting for their money. So the two trends dovetail. Also, audiences want spectacle. If you're paying $15 a ticket, you don't want to see a movie without it. Small dramas can play out on TV, but people want something for their money that doesn't come across on TV. So spectacle it is, and when it comes connected with a known name, financing falls into place. And if you can't provide the spectacle, a known quantity is easier to finance and sell. I've seen this trend occur in other art forms: as cost and prices rise, people are unwilling to risk money on something unknown.

A great film from start to finish. The visuals, the characters, the story, are about as good as you can get. Anderson is stylized to the point of self-satire, but he manages to make it work, and each of his films are a little bit better. The best animated film I've seen in years, and, if there were any justice in this world, it deserves to get a Best Picture nomination.

Edgy MD wrote: And the Central New York location. I don't know if the fictional town of the movie was actually set in CNY (most sasquatch sitings are associated with the Northwest), but it was shot in and around Hamilton/Colgate. It also borrows sequences and plot turns from Jaws.The real Pottersville, NY is in the Adirondacks, about ten miles south of Schroon Lake. I used to vacation there.

Svengoolie is an excellent host; in among the corny jokes are bits of background on the films that truly add to the enjoyment of them. MST3K is currently being rebroadcast on Comet TV. You can also stream it at Shout Factory TV.

I enjoyed it. I had read the book, so I knew the killer, but it'd been a long time and, like any train trip, the best part is the journey. Branagh was a good Poirot once you got used to the moustache. I was a big fan of his when he started out. This is nothing like his best, but still a classy entertainment.

I haven't been to many. In order. 1. Yankee Stadium 2. Shea Stadium 3. Fenway Park 4. Remodeled Yankee Stadium. I actually ran onto the field before the 1977 All-Star Game and got in no trouble whatsoever (I had press credentials). 5. Wrigley Field

Still a good movie, but at the final scene, I wanted to shout, "It's a cookbook!" [youtube:340241wp]vdl24bLAs1k?t=22m10s[/youtube:340241wp]