Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Saw The Protege over the weekend. It’s not a bad movie, but maybe more of a free watch. Michael Keaton was definitely the best part of the film and it would have been totally boring without him. I honestly couldn’t wait for more scenes involving his character. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Went old school and re-watched JAWS on Prime. Still a classic but never realized it was rated PG :shok:

Then I re-watched the sequels...

JAWS 2 which was OK for a sequel, the teens screaming was over the top though.

JAWS 3D was guilty pleasure camp. I remember seeing it in 3D at release and thought it was wild. However silly me didn't also realize that it starred Dennis Quaid and Louis Gossert Jr. who would re-unite to star in ENEMY MINE, a classic sci-fi film. 

JAWS: The Revenge is next but I already now how awful it is. Ugh.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting tid-bit. The line 'You're going to need a bigger boat,' actually was a reference to the support boat needed to guide the camera barge they used beside the Orca, both for filming and carrying supplies for the film crew. Only it wasn't a very big craft, lacking the power it needed to keep the barge steady, which led to a gunning gag on set about 'needing a bigger boat.'

https://www.cinemablend.com/new/Hilarious-Way-Jaws-Came-Up-With-Its-Most-Famous-Line-116997.html

Edited by Thom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/1/2021 at 6:01 AM, TangledThorns said:

Went old school and re-watched JAWS on Prime. Still a classic but never realized it was rated PG :shok:

I've been having this problems recently when it comes to ratings with my 12yr old son. When he stumbles on these old titles that I love and he's kind of interested watching it, he will point it out that it's PG and that it's safe for him. And I always explain to him over and over that PG back then is actually PG-13 and above now. It may look 'innocent' back then but it's totally different with today's standards. :nea:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember PG-13 as being a way to rate some things that otherwise would have been rated R.  The real difference is what we consider PG now is not what we consider PG then.  And not to forget that PG stands for Parental Guidance which means parents have to make a call for their kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I remember watching the old clash of the titans and there’s a bit of bloody combat and a surprising amount of nudity in a pg film. Those standards should probably be updated, but there’s a part of me that loves seeing such soft ratings marked on them. 80’s through the 90’s were really harsh on films, but a lot of R rated films today would have probably gotten an X rating a couple decades ago. Robocop almost had the X for a few seconds of extra gore oddly enough 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Big s said:

Yeah, I remember watching the old clash of the titans and there’s a bit of bloody combat and a surprising amount of nudity in a pg film. Those standards should probably be updated, but there’s a part of me that loves seeing such soft ratings marked on them. 80’s through the 90’s were really harsh on films, but a lot of R rated films today would have probably gotten an X rating a couple decades ago. Robocop almost had the X for a few seconds of extra gore oddly enough 

RoboCop did it for me. I got scared of Kurtwood Smith. Until I saw him on That '70s Show. He made me actually believe that he's ruthless.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, no3Ljm said:

RoboCop did it for me. I got scared of Kurtwood Smith. Until I saw him on That '70s Show. He made me actually believe that he's ruthless.

 

Kurtwood Smith was terrifying in Robocop, though that scene with ED-209 & the executive who gets blown away is still beyond disturbing to me... still hard to watch though Alex Murphy getting shot just might be just as bad.

 

As for that 70's show, I remember reading long ago that when the cast met up for the first time some of the teen cast were like "Oh sh-t, it's Clarence Boddicker!" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, 505thAirborne said:

Kurtwood Smith was terrifying in Robocop,

I give him real credit for that.  If you were to describe the physical features of the nasty villain type Clarence Bodicker is NOT it.  Then Kurtwood Smith pulls it off and becomes one of the classic villains of all time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dynaman said:

I give him real credit for that.  If you were to describe the physical features of the nasty villain type Clarence Bodicker is NOT it.  Then Kurtwood Smith pulls it off and becomes one of the classic villains of all time.

This is one of the reasons the reboot wasn't as good as it should have been, it lacked a serious villain. Michael Keaton is a great actor but just doesn't come across as bad as a villian as Clarence Bodicker or Dick Jones were in the original.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t try to compre the reboot since other than name and the fact that the main character was a cop, they’re almost completely different. I think Keaton made for a great modern bad guy. He’s that rich guy that tries to stay up to date, but doesn’t understand that he’s the bad guy. 

 The old version everyone knew who was good and who was bad and just didn’t care. Human lives were so meaningless that if the bad guy had to accomplish something, it didn’t matter who died to get what they needed. And the good guys seemed only slightly better. If they were bad they got killed even if they really couldn’t put up a fight against Robocop, he still put a few bullets in them and rarely arrested anyone.

 I do prefer the original and think it’s an awkwardly perfect movie that shouldn’t have been rebooted at all, but it was. To me the reboot works if you disconnect your ideas of the original and think of it as it’s own thing. The reboot had some really great ideas and concepts, but it’s definitely not what people wanted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Big s said:

I don’t try to compre the reboot since other than name and the fact that the main character was a cop, they’re almost completely different. I think Keaton made for a great modern bad guy. He’s that rich guy that tries to stay up to date, but doesn’t understand that he’s the bad guy. 

 The old version everyone knew who was good and who was bad and just didn’t care. Human lives were so meaningless that if the bad guy had to accomplish something, it didn’t matter who died to get what they needed. And the good guys seemed only slightly better. If they were bad they got killed even if they really couldn’t put up a fight against Robocop, he still put a few bullets in them and rarely arrested anyone.

 I do prefer the original and think it’s an awkwardly perfect movie that shouldn’t have been rebooted at all, but it was. To me the reboot works if you disconnect your ideas of the original and think of it as it’s own thing. The reboot had some really great ideas and concepts, but it’s definitely not what people wanted

The scene where everything was lit by muzzle flashes was genius. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/3/2021 at 5:21 PM, no3Ljm said:

RoboCop did it for me. I got scared of Kurtwood Smith. Until I saw him on That '70s Show. He made me actually believe that he's ruthless.

 

That’s how I felt about JK Simmons. I first saw him in a little show called Oz on HBO. He scared/disturbed me so much I had a really hard time not seeing him as that character in anything else for YEARS. Even when he played J Jonah Jameson. And I was an adult too when I first saw him in Oz! Lol
 

Chris

Edited by Dobber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mog said:

So, between his character in Oz and his character in Whiplash, who’s the scarier of the two?

Never saw Whiplash so I can’t say….but it would be hard to beat his character from Oz.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Dobber said:

Never saw Whiplash so I can’t say….but it would be hard to beat his character from Oz.

Chris

That whole show was uncomfortable. I tried watching it about 10yrs ago and didn't make it very far.

Edited by sqidd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sqidd said:

That whole show was uncomfortable. I tried watching it about 10yrs ago and didn't make it very far.

Yup me too I think I only watched the first season and just couldn’t take anymore of it. It was that disturbing.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TangledThorns said:

Watched the Bob Ross documentary on Netflix. Interesting for sure and it made the Kowalski family the Carole Baskin of 2021, lol!

My sister saw this first and gave me a heads up. I watched it last weekend. I have no words. The Kowalskis certainly didn’t do themselves any favors either by avoiding the interview requests for the documentary.

What boggles my mind is how two distinct tragedies are uncovered: the one focused around Bob Ross, his partnership, his name and legacy, and the other focused around the Jenkins and the IP for their own flower paintings. 

Coincidentally, when I was working for a local newspaper, I wrote a community piece about a senior center in one of the towns I covered that was hosting a certified Bob Ross instructor. I even got to participate—and wouldn’t you know she was teaching flower techniques! This documentary helped connect dots to some questions from that day which have been bugging me for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had a lazy weekend and just watched stuff on tv. We finally watched Love and Monsters since it’s free on Hulu and it’s pretty fun n for a low budget film.it had a fun post apocalyptic story that was based around a giant meteor that had to be nuked and the fallout created a mutation of most of the normal earth creatures.

 It’s not a groundbreaking or entirely perfect movie, but a definitely fun freewatch and a more uplifting story rather than overly another depressing post apocalyptic films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Saw Hangman on hbo max. The acting of the main characters was pretty good. It’s what I would expect from Carl Urban and Al Pacino. Unfortunately it wasn’t a very good movie. Just kinda ok and if it wasn’t for the actors involved it would just be bad. The premise is stupid and the mystery parts are like the writer wanted to have some overly complicated puzzles, but ran out of time to put in the details and the good guys magically figure it out like the boy from lassie somehow figuring out the kid is stuck in a well. And the motivation for the killer and the reason he pics his victims is such a lame idea that someone at some point in the writing stage should have slapped the person for coming up with it. And then there’s a teaser for a sequel that makes even less sense

 I would say watch it for these great actors giving their best with cheesy dialogue and a stupid story, otherwise you could probably just skip it and be just as happy that you had something better to do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...