TV/Movies Megathread

[11B4V]

Yes, yes it is and understandable too.

[Ideologue]

I'm perversely fascinated by the intensity of my negative reaction.  There's a lot of feeling coming up.

I can dig it.  It's universally praised but as far as I can tell without having seen it (yet) it's an hour and a half of some fucking annoying woman.  It's on My List in Netflix, but I watched Mulan instead.  B+

[jimmy olsen]

I can dig it.  It's universally praised but as far as I can tell without having seen it (yet) it's an hour and a half of some fucking annoying woman.  It's on My List in Netflix, but I watched Mulan instead. B+

Watched that for the first time recently with my students, I was surprised by how much I enjoyed it.

[Savonarola]

Golf (1922)

Larry Semon (I assume it's supposed to rhyme with "Lemon", but I also assume he was picked on a lot as a child) stars in this slapstick adventure.  Most of it's just gags strung together, some that take place on the golf course.  At one point the film turns into Caddy Shack as Larry is confronted by a squirrel on the golf course who steals his ball.  Larry draws a pistol on the squirrel (the Roaring 20s were like that) and the squirrel manages to steal the gun and fire it at Larry.

Oliver Hardy is the bad guy (comic villain was his usual role until he started acting with Stan Laurel  .)   in this one who chases Larry around through much of the movie.  He even puts nitroglycerin into Larry's ball; at which the film turns into a Silly Symphony Cartoon.

[Malthus]

I'm perversely fascinated by the intensity of my negative reaction.  There's a lot of feeling coming up.

What's it about, and why is it horrible?

[Queequeg]

I'm perversely fascinated by the intensity of my negative reaction.  There's a lot of feeling coming up.

What's it about, and why is it horrible?

A shitty fucking hipster dancer in New York having shitty fucking adventures without much regard to plot or growth or character development. 

[Scipio]

Inside Man.

Still the best Spike Lee joint.

It's a pity he's never matched it.

[Eddie Teach]

At least his career's done better than the Knicks.

[Ideologue]

The Sword in the Stone (1963).  A sub-mediocre, boring movie about young king-to-be Arthur--at no point is the lad's identity a secret in any fashion--and his crappy education at the hands of Merlin, an uncredentialed time traveler and wizard whose pedagogical methods largely involve transforming the boy into a series of animals and subjecting him to the physical and psychosexual torments appropriate to each one's idiom.  My favorite part was definitely when he laughs when the (12 year old) Arthur is about to be raped by a squirrel.  LOL.  Actually, even better might be when Merlin engages in a Wizard's Duel with Morgan le Fay Madam Mim, to the death, without bothering to change Arthur back from a bird into a boy first.  What an asshole.  The duel itself, however, is the only genuinely interesting sequence in the film.

So, really, my favorite part is probably the seventy minutes this film lacks a villain or conflict you might give a shit about--Madam Mim appears and disappears for no narratively obvious reason--unless you count Arthur's master as the villain.  He's some duke or something, who is basically a high school bully despite the facts that 1)Arthur is under Merlin's protection and 2)the duke has seen Merlin commit egregious acts of magic which could easily kill him.

Also, despite the promise of jousting, there is no jousting to be had, and the kid voicing Arthur is annoying, and I'd probably give him swirlies too.  This movie is largely not even animated that well.

It's a shame, because a time-traveling Merlin and the youth of Arthur, not to mention an evil female sorceress bent on destroying him, are good story elements, which is why they've been in good stories.  Just not this one.

C

[Darth Wagtaros]

You're a tool.

[garbon]

You're a tool.

Your face is a tool.

[11B4V]

The Sword in the Stone (1963).  A sub-mediocre, boring movie about young king-to-be Arthur--at no point is the lad's identity a secret in any fashion--and his crappy education at the hands of Merlin, an uncredentialed time traveler and wizard whose pedagogical methods largely involve transforming the boy into a series of animals and subjecting him to the physical and psychosexual torments appropriate to each one's idiom.  My favorite part was definitely when he laughs when the (12 year old) Arthur is about to be raped by a squirrel.  LOL.  Actually, even better might be when Merlin engages in a Wizard's Duel with Morgan le Fay Madam Mim, to the death, without bothering to change Arthur back from a bird into a boy first.  What an asshole.  The duel itself, however, is the only genuinely interesting sequence in the film.

So, really, my favorite part is probably the seventy minutes this film lacks a villain or conflict you might give a shit about--Madam Mim appears and disappears for no narratively obvious reason--unless you count Arthur's master as the villain.  He's some duke or something, who is basically a high school bully despite the facts that 1)Arthur is under Merlin's protection and 2)the duke has seen Merlin commit egregious acts of magic which could easily kill him.

Also, despite the promise of jousting, there is no jousting to be had, and the kid voicing Arthur is annoying, and I'd probably give him swirlies too.  This movie is largely not even animated that well.

It's a shame, because a time-traveling Merlin and the youth of Arthur, not to mention an evil female sorceress bent on destroying him, are good story elements, which is why they've been in good stories.  Just not this one.

C

BTW have you seen Disney's Robin Hood.

[Eddie Teach]

You're a tool.

Your face is a tool.

What does he use it for? 

[Eddie Teach]

BTW have you seen Disney's Robin Hood.

Robin Hood, Jungle Book and Alice in Wonderland are all awesome.

[Ideologue]

The Sword in the Stone (1963).  A sub-mediocre, boring movie about young king-to-be Arthur--at no point is the lad's identity a secret in any fashion--and his crappy education at the hands of Merlin, an uncredentialed time traveler and wizard whose pedagogical methods largely involve transforming the boy into a series of animals and subjecting him to the physical and psychosexual torments appropriate to each one's idiom.  My favorite part was definitely when he laughs when the (12 year old) Arthur is about to be raped by a squirrel.  LOL.  Actually, even better might be when Merlin engages in a Wizard's Duel with Morgan le Fay Madam Mim, to the death, without bothering to change Arthur back from a bird into a boy first.  What an asshole.  The duel itself, however, is the only genuinely interesting sequence in the film.

So, really, my favorite part is probably the seventy minutes this film lacks a villain or conflict you might give a shit about--Madam Mim appears and disappears for no narratively obvious reason--unless you count Arthur's master as the villain.  He's some duke or something, who is basically a high school bully despite the facts that 1)Arthur is under Merlin's protection and 2)the duke has seen Merlin commit egregious acts of magic which could easily kill him.

Also, despite the promise of jousting, there is no jousting to be had, and the kid voicing Arthur is annoying, and I'd probably give him swirlies too.  This movie is largely not even animated that well.

It's a shame, because a time-traveling Merlin and the youth of Arthur, not to mention an evil female sorceress bent on destroying him, are good story elements, which is why they've been in good stories.  Just not this one.

C

BTW have you seen Disney's Robin Hood.

Yes.  I adored it as a child, I listened to the Roger Miller soundtrack just last week, and if pressed would give it a B+ right now.  It's newly on IW, but I'm really into Tarzan at the moment (not on IW and with a long wait) so I plopped the three bucks to rent it off Amazon.  I remember liking Tarzan a lot but disliking the Phil Collins songs.