TV/Movies Megathread

[Ideologue]

The Untouchables (1987).  One of the quintessential examples of how the best thing a film can be about is itself, we have one of the 1980s' supreme action-thrillers, brought to your screen by the Master of the Macabre at his most eager-to-please.  Fully in line with the decade's troublesome politics as well as its embrace of the extremes of violence, The Untouchables is (honestly) all the better for it.  10/10

Carlito's Way (1993).  Great opening thriller setpieces, and a closing chase for the ages, along with some very well-done work throughout; De Palma and Stephen Burum always know how to compose an image, and stars Al Pacino and Sean Penn are never uninteresting.  (John Leguizamo, meanwhile, is pretty unforgettable as Benny Blanco from the Bronx.)  Nonetheless, the hour and a half between the really cool stuff suffers a little bit from a lack of anything really compelling; it's sort of the point, but even while criminal plans get hatched it feels more like a hang-out movie.  Not that there's anything wrong with hanging out with Carlito Brigante--as far as gangland types go, he's readily one of the easiest to like--it just lacks a certain sense of urgency.  Plus, that voiceover is, in two words, fucking terrible.  8/10

Big Business (1988).  A genial comedy of mistaken identity, revolving around a set of twins half-switched at birth, each set played in dual roles by Lily Tomlin and Bette Midler.  One set owns a major international corporation, the other lives in the podunk town where they were all born.  One day, the corporation threatens to sell the factory that supports the podunk town to an Italian mining concern, and the podunk sisters go to New York to "raise hell."  Hi-jinx, obviously, ensue.  Despite being very easy to watch, the big problem with the film is that the writers were apparently under the impression that the premise alone was funny enough to get them halfway to a success, and that Tomlin and Midler's personalities would get the movie the rest of the way there.  I suppose it almost works, but whether that was the plan or not, somebody forgot to write in actual jokes until the very last act of the movie.  It's interesting mainly for the complicated splitscreen used to sell the illusion of the two sets of twins, and how it reverses the usual comedy structure of being funny until the climax by only being funny in the climax.  (Indeed, the last shot--your genuine 80s freeze frame--is actually a bit of a scream.)  Altogether I wouldn't recommend it.  5/10

[jimmy olsen]

The Martian has 38 positive reviews to 1 negative on Rotten Tomatoes. Is Ridley Scott back!?

[Ideologue]

Meh.  People were a little overzealous to condemn Exodus: Gods and Kings (it's basically ok) and they just didn't get The Counselor (which was one of the best movies of 2013, although it wasn't clearly made for anybody but Cormac McCarthy, Ridley Scott, and Tony's ghost--though, anyway, I imagine Tony would've enjoyed it).  Prometheus, admittedly, might be dumb as balls, and is a bad movie on that basis, but it's a matter for debate how much of that is Ridley Scott's fault, and it looks great.  The Martian, to my understanding, has a very solid basis for its screenplay; so I see no reason why The Martian won't be just fine, and it's one of the four movies I'm still looking forward to this year.

Also, the Kingdom of Heaven extended cut is fantastic.  FYI.

[garbon]

Or the real issue might be that The Counselor was just bad.

[celedhring]

Ridley Scott is the quintessential example of a director that's as good as the script he gets. He won't elevate mediocre material, but when he gets a good story he's a fantastic visualist.

His problem is that he, indeed, doesn't seem to have as good an eye for stories as he has for visuals.

[Syt]

Scott is to me the director who peaked early. His second and third movies were Alien and Blade Runner. His later movies weren't all bad and I like a fair few of them - but I feel he never again reached those heights.

[jimmy olsen]

Scott is to me the director who peaked early. His second and third movies were Alien and Blade Runner. His later movies weren't all bad and I like a fair few of them - but I feel he never again reached those heights.

He directed Gladiator, didn't he? That movie was awesome

[Syt]

It's a fun movie, but it's nowhere near as seminal as Alien/Blade Runner were.

[The Brain]

The Duellists is great. Well at least very good.

Gladiator is meh.

[Martinus]

So, I havent seen any of the movies in the series so here's the question - should I watch the Hunger Games? I understand this is pop culture so I am not expecting high brow philosophy, just solid entertainment - so is this closer to Harry Potter (good) or Twilight (bad)?

[Martinus]

Meh.  People were a little overzealous to condemn Exodus: Gods and Kings (it's basically ok) and they just didn't get The Counselor (which was one of the best movies of 2013, although it wasn't clearly made for anybody but Cormac McCarthy, Ridley Scott, and Tony's ghost--though, anyway, I imagine Tony would've enjoyed it).  Prometheus, admittedly, might be dumb as balls, and is a bad movie on that basis, but it's a matter for debate how much of that is Ridley Scott's fault, and it looks great.  The Martian, to my understanding, has a very solid basis for its screenplay; so I see no reason why The Martian won't be just fine, and it's one of the four movies I'm still looking forward to this year.

Also, the Kingdom of Heaven extended cut is fantastic.  FYI.

I tried watching Exodus, but hated the Pharaoh character - he looked like a thug.

I did enjoy Gladiator a lot, though the awesome soundtrack may take at least some of the credit for that.

I liked Kingdom of Heaven.

[Ideologue]

So, I havent seen any of the movies in the series so here's the question - should I watch the Hunger Games? I understand this is pop culture so I am not expecting high brow philosophy, just solid entertainment - so is this closer to Harry Potter (good) or Twilight (bad)?

People certainly seem to enjoy the Hunger Games series, so go nuts.  I think they're worse than Twilight overall.  Jennifer Lawrence is terrible in them, the stories of at least the first two are very bad (but particularly the first), and the filmmaking of the first one is rankly amateurish and ugly, whereas the filmmaking of the second is merely mediocre and basically watchable.

The Harry Potter movies are certainly much better.

[Ideologue]

Also, Joel Edgerton's Rameses is pretty definitely one of Exodus' weak links.

(Exodus might be perceived as better if The Ten Commandments didn't already exist, and wasn't better in every single conceivable way.)

[lustindarkness]

Ide does not like the Hunger Games movies? I guess I should watch them then.

[Eddie Teach]

So, I havent seen any of the movies in the series so here's the question - should I watch the Hunger Games? I understand this is pop culture so I am not expecting high brow philosophy, just solid entertainment - so is this closer to Harry Potter (good) or Twilight (bad)?

The first two were pretty interesting. The third was kind of meh. Haven't seen the finale yet.

Much better than Divergent. I can't speak for Twilight, as I haven't seen it.