Movie Party #6

Who’s in?

7 faces of dr. lao

The Beast

scott

New Sega Handheld

it’s not really a gaming system, but who else wants to predict it’s failure right now?

 

scott

The day the Bond died

There have been some pretty suspect choices when it comes to singers for 007 themes but usually those suspect artists were rescued by a co-composer or producer that was forced on them. But . . .

Jack Fucking White?

 

kicknz

Bruce Lee movies are 1) possibly racist 2) definitely often anti-climactic

I have seen EVERY movie starring Bruce Lee. PS - That’s only 5 movies. Here’s a common theme in these movies: set up some guy or group as being pretty tough, then have Bruce very easily destroy the guy or group. Most of the fighters in these movies are Chinese, Japanese, or European/American whites. PS - I’m using common, international names for these movies (THE BIG BOSS, FIST OF FURY, RETURN OF THE DRAGON, ENTER THE DRAGON, GAME OF DEATH).

CHINESE
Almost all Chinese fighters are at least somewhat formidable, even if they look and act like clumsy asses. Take the Chinese guy that Bruce fights at the end of THE BIG BOSS (can’t remember its American name) - he just looks like an older, more Chinese version of Jim Meier but he gives Bruce a run for his money. So does the old dork with a fake hand in ENTER THE DRAGON. Other Chinese fighters are usually set up as being somewhat tough and live up to expectations, like the pricks near the end of GAME OF DEATH.

WHITES
Whites are often set up as tough, only to be very easily disposed of. First, the most famous example - Chuck Norris in RETURN OF THE DRAGON. His character is supposed to be the karate world champion (if I remember correctly) but apparently he fights as a mercenary, as well. Eventually, he fights Bruce in the CLIMACTIC CONCLUSION fight, which is competitive for about 30 seconds before Bruce spends the rest of the fight breaking Chuck’s arm, leg and then neck with the greatest of ease. Or how about the Russian guy at the end of FIST OF FURY? Or O’Hara, the supposedly invincible guy in ENTER THE DRAGON? Or the fucking pro fighter in GAME OF DEATH that Lee doesn’t even break a sweat on? That’s right, in 4 of Lee’s 5 movies, there’s a white guy that is presented as somewhere between pretty tough to super touch, and Lee beats all their assholes without any problem. John Saxon is very unconvincingly presented as a tough fighter in ENTER THE DRAGON, an American-produced movie. His character doesn’t fight Lee.

JAPANESE
Unless I’m mistaken, Japanese fighters only appear in FIST OF FURY but Jesus, are they pathetic - to the point that it’s not the least bit interesting. Basically, Lee strolls into a dojo and beats up every guy in the place every bit as effectively as Superman could manage. Yeah, I get it - it’s a statement and the Chinese hate the Japanese but, holy shit, it’s just dumb.

BLACKS
There’s a black dude, played by Kareem Abdul Jabar, that fights Bruce in GAME OF DEATH. He’s actually quite formidable. He was also Lee’s student in real life so perhaps that explains his unusual status as the only non-Chinese opponent to make Bruce sweat. One of the main characters in ENTER THE DRAGON is black but he’s killed pretty easily by an old Chinese geek.

CONCLUSION
Lee’s status as film icon is somewhat unearned. His movies always have long, boring stretches and they usually serve vehicles for him to easily destroy dudes. THE KARATE KID is way better than any Bruce Lee movie even though its fighting is slow and unimpressive. It’s the DRAMA that makes it exciting. Tony Jaa movies are a lot better than Lee movies, too - the stunts are boss and his charactesr don’t just beat everyone without blinking an eye.

 

kicknz

movie challenge 2005: chapter 9

sorry everybody. i’ve been busy with band stuff and label stuff lately.

i’ve got a little bit of free time at the moment, so let’s get back into the movie challenge. right where we left off…

chapter 1, chapter 2, chapter 3, chapter 4, chapter 5, chapter 6, chapter 7, chapter 8

May 12th, 2005

i haven’t felt like doing anything but sleeping for a couple months now. it’s getting bad. i gotta get out of here.

Bones:

not as bad as i expected. it actually had some neat visuals early on, and snoop dogg wasn’t as dreadful as i expected him to be. however, the movie was boring. it never really went anywhere, especially anywhere unexpected, and the end just got stupid. it’s not even a movie to watch for a good chuckle. don’t bother with it.

 

The Boston Strangler:

made in 1968. just 4 years after the killings had ended. i really liked the cinematography and editing. richard fleischer did a lot of split screen shots and cool cropping. i found it rather artistic and unique. but like with all movies ‘based on actual events’, they didn’t really go for realism. actual events were changed to work into the plot twists and to fit the angle they were going for. they made the boston strangler into a split personallity disorder, which wasn’t correct or even speculated in the real case. one interesting thing about the real case is that many people think the boston strangler is still alive and living in the boston area. i found the real story to be fascinating, and recommend anyone interested in serial killers to look into it. i also recommend the film. it’s not accurate, but it’s a well done movie.

some images from: moviescreenshots.blogspot.com
 

The Bunker:

the title is dumb, and the cover is more dumb, but the movie wasn’t that bad. it’s about a small group of german soldiers during ww2. they’re in a bunker. they think the enemy is beginning to surround them, they’re running out of ammo, and they can’t get ahold of any other germans. to top it off, none of them really like each other, and the tunnels built beneath the bunker are supposedly haunted. you never really know if it is haunted, or if they’re just going crazy, or what. the movie never reallly gets suspenseful or anything. it’s decent and made on a small budget, but it seems like it could have been better.

 

Bram Stoker’s Dracula:

i actually didn’t like it much. maybe i expected too much from it? i dunno. i never got into it. i did like some of the visuals and effects and stuff, but it’s not gonna make it on my top horror movies list. i’m sorry. i know that coppola is supposed to be awesome, but he did not impress me at all with this film. and again i want to know why the fuck anyone would give keanu reeves any role more than ‘cop number 1′ or ’shopkeep’ or ‘extra’.

 

scott

IMDBates: The Dark Knight

Here’s a link to a hilarious post on The Onion AV Club’s Link Blog, which presents some of the choicest debates raging within the forum on the IMDB page for The Dark Knight. It covers the contingent of women who think The Joker is sexy and how Maggie Gyllenhaal’s perceived lack of attractiveness almost ruined some posters’ enjoyment of the movie. So yeah, basically written by morons and parents-basment types. It’s long, but worth it:

 

http://www.avclub.com/content/blog/imdbates_the_dark_knight

 

miloprometheus

UPDATE . . . . . . Warner Bros. DC . . . ohhhhhhhh

Okay, I just watched Batman (like you’ve never seen him before) from 1989 and that is NOT an A movie. This throws my entire Warner Bros. DC list into doubt. I first saw this movie when I was 10 and loved it so hard I had sex with it. I’ve seen it many times but I guess maybe not for several years before tonight. I’m thinking I either watched it with a really critical eye for the first time or maybe The Dark Knight is just so good that this movie looks silly but whatever! The point is - this movie ain’t that great.

I can tell you what I loved about this movie when I was 10 - the Batsuit, the (few) hand-to-hand fight scenes, and Joker’s kewl one-liners. Well, now I realize that this batsuit is kinda clunky. For one thing, the head is really big. In the few shots where you can see Batman from the feet up, it’s pretty obvious as the head and shoulder pads are huge and then you look down and see Michael Keaton’s cute little chicken legs poking out from underneath the cape. The fights are pretty short and not as cool as they could be but they’re still okay. I’ll describe them now: 1) A swordsman swings his swords all over the place and Batman kicks him in the face. 2) In a cathedral, this dude does 30 backhandsprings before flying toward Batman with blades protruding from his boots (which is pretty cool) but Batman gets him in the nuts with his EXTENDING PALM . 3) A guy jumps at Batman and falls through the floor (pretty funny). 4) A big guy beats the shit out of Batman and then Batman’s Batchickenlegs pull him down a staircaise to his death.

The biggest issue with this movie is that it has no plot. I’ll sum it up for you: Gotham is turning 200 years old. There’s gonna be a party. Crime Boss’s Henchman is humping Crime Boss’s lady so Crime Boss sets up Henchman. Henchman becomes Joker, takes over crime and randomly does stuff that is bad. Batman randomly opposes him. Police do FUCKING NOTHING EVER. There’s a scene where Joker kills a dude on the courthouse steps and in the background you can see 2 cops just standing there doing NOTHING (and then they get shooted). Wait, is that part of the plot? In the newest movie, Joker basically does bad stuff randomly but at least he explains that he just thinks it’s fun. In this old movie, Joker seems half-crazy and half-just like any other crime boss.

This movie is campy, too, just like the old Batman TV show. When I was a kid I thought that the “new” 1989 Batman was dead serious and grim and awesome and the old show was silly but no, the 1989 movie is just silly in an ’80s way. I already mentioned the silly EXTENDING PALM on Batman’s glove. PS - Why did he implement such a feature? Was he really expecting to have to whack a guy in the nuts to avoid boot blades at some point? There’s a part where Batman flies in his Batwing jet and uses SCISSORS on the front of the jet to collect some parade balloons. ARGH! What was he planning for when designing the jet that he decided it should have scissors?

I dunno, man. This movie is a C.

kicknz

I very briefly grade all of the Warner Bros. DC Comics movies

* = I like it to some extent, even if has a bad grade

Superman: The Movie (A)
Superman II (A)
Superman III (C)*
Supergirl (C-)*
Superman IV: The Quest For Peace (D)*
Superman Returns (C)

Batman (A)
Batman Returns (A)
Batman Forever (C+)*
Batman & Robin (D)*
Batman Begins (A)
The Dark Knight (A+)

Steel (D)
Catwoman (F)
Constantine (B-)
V For Vendetta (B-)

kicknz

lol

I just watched the first half hour of CATWOMAN on YouTube. LOLOLOLOL Wow, it really lives up to the hype. It’s fucking awful. The script is awful, the acting is awful, the direction is just so self-satisfied. But it really doesn’t stop there, as there are inconsistencies in the audio mix, bad (but expensive) special effects, and silly computerized cinematography. Just stunning. I honestly believe that Batman and Robin and Superman IV: The Quest For Peace are much, much better films than this, and THAT’S SAYING SOMETHING.

WATCHMEN: THE TRAILER

I know a lot of people here are big fans of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’s seminal comic Watchmen. With that in mind, here is the trailer for the movie version directed by Zack Synder (300):

http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/watchmen/

Discuss.

miloprometheus