chowderhead
Platinum Member
- Dec 7, 1999
- 2,633
- 263
- 126
the Fast and the Furious is literally plotwise the same movie as Point BreakNever heard of either TBH. I was specifically talking about the first Fast and Furious film.
the Fast and the Furious is literally plotwise the same movie as Point BreakNever heard of either TBH. I was specifically talking about the first Fast and Furious film.
Episode 6 of The Squid Games. Best so far. Hard hitting episode. That was really well done.
I hope the last three are as good.
porn .. porn .. easy to throw that word around, but it's artistic expression, not porn. Why porn, just because there is a frontal shot of 13yo Van Peebles Jr's footlong that leads to one of several unsimulated sex scenes, so much so that Van P Sr actually got compensation from the screen director's guild for being injured on the job (got gonorrhea) which he then used to buy more film??Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
1971. Well, I didn't make out how long it was, I suppose around 2 hours. Couldn't end soon enough for me, but I toughed it out to the end. It started fantastic, I mean who shows straight up porn during the opening credits, huh? The recently deceased Melvin Van Peebles was jack of all trades on this one. Starred, wrote, edited, composed the music, etc. etc.
So, it started great, there was a lot of pretty good stuff in there but it went downhill steadily and I was WTF are they really doing here? I mean, no plot, just stark exaggeration of stereotypes, catering to popular tropes, sensationalism, pulling out all stops in portraying the mistreatment of blacks, the incorrigible racism of law enforcement (this was 1970, so revolution was in the air in urban centers in the USA)... now, it did have a lot of great cinematic values... Peebles took that to the limit... there was no overdoing anything for him, he just went for it. The music was fine, OK, great really, but there wasn't the variety needed, he beat it to death. A lot of REALLY BAD acting. It's kind of a so bad it's good kind of movie in some ways. It's certainly a novelty. It was early blaxploitation! I'll give it 6/10.
Yeah, I'm still digesting my watch of Sweetback.... I read Wikipedia's page on it and realized that I didn't always get the backbone, i.e. the gist of the "plot." Digdog's right in that there was a whole lot of try everything and see what sticks going on, though. Hell of experimental, and to credit Peebles, a lot of that was groundbreaking and had much influence on cinema going forward... but does that recommend it for modern viewers? I mean, yeah, it was 50 years ago. Peebles was relatively poor, the studios rejected the project, he got a IIRC $75,000 loan from Bill Cosby (Cosby didn't want any proceeds, just his 75k back) and it was shot in 19 days using largely amateur actors (largely terrible acting). The movie did make $15 million at the box office, got mixed reviews.porn .. porn .. easy to throw that word around, but it's artistic expression, not porn. Why porn, just because there is a frontal shot of 13yo Van Peebles Jr's footlong that leads to one of several unsimulated sex scenes, so much so that Van P Sr actually got compensation from the screen director's guild for being injured on the job (got gonorrhea) which he then used to buy more film??
ok maybe it is porn.
Given that i can never be N2 to Muse, i too watched .. ermmm...
Well, "watched" is a strong word. Let's say "i saw". I looked at.
I looked at Sweet Sweetback's Badass Song - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067810/reference
and i would not recommend it.
This is very much the equivalent of a student film being repurposed for distribution (as Dark Star was). While it does have some historical merits, it's just so poorly made that you would have to be heavily invested in the culture to actually understands what's going on. Lots of dark shots, cuts that make little sense, terrible filming, and, to be honest, the dialogue and scenes are not really funny.
Compare it instead to the far better Dolemite, or any number of other blaxploitation films, and Sweetback comes across as amateurish in every way possible.
..i mean ... cuz it was. They were literally throwin' the kitchen sink, see what sticks attitude.
I'm sure it would have been groundbreaking at the time, but unless you are a dedicated historian of the genre, there are better alternatives to spend your time with, for example, the also-released-in-1971 "Shaft" (no, not the Samuel L Jackson version).
My vote: 5/10 with a measly +0.5 for historical significance
I am almost positive that was not the case with that movie. Im pretty sure the creator of the series, David Chase, was highly involved with it.Yeah Hollywood does that a lot. Somebody comes up with a shitty script, they cant sell it, or sell the movie, they find some way to indirectly tie it into something more famous, they rewrite a few lines and PRESTO!
Now you have ticket sales.
I watched the witcher movie on netflix about geralt's predecessor vesemir. It was a 6/10. Enjoyable but kind of light on plot and with thin characters.
I finally watched Blade Runner (1982). It had some decent sequences in it and the casting was pretty good, but story and execution of the story were lacking. Hard to explain but much of it was the choice to make the scenes so dark. Even when the characters were indoors, there was typically a greater light-source outside. Maybe that's just what the future would have been like without LED lighting.
I could definitely see a lot of similarities between Blade Runner and movies that came out later. It's neat when you see ideas recycled and re-executed 15+ years later in sci-fi without much change. I'm going to give it a solid 6/10. With better staged lighting, special effects (fight scenes), and story details, it could have easily been a 7 or more.
Last time I had a netflix account I'm pretty sure they had two versions.Whichever one was on Netflix.
Which version did they mail short people? I watched the other one.Last time I had a netflix account I'm pretty sure they had two versions.
I finally watched Blade Runner (1982). It WAS AMAZING
I'm going to give it a solid 9/10 AND I DONT KNOW MUCH ABOUT FILM