User Profile

Forum Activity by Apex Predator

Yes he does. Even though his former (?) Labor Day telethon was guilty of exploiting those with Muscular Dystrophy to raise funds and focusing on a cure instead of making life easier for them.

I still remember the Animaniacs parody where Jerry was a shoes salesman. Here's a nice photo of this:

Hey Lady!

Still his mix of verbal and physical humor can't quite be matched at his peak. Rest In Peace.

PS: Thank goodness he got the ball rolling on everyone getting to see The Day the Clown Cried before he died.
Aug 20, 2017 10:46 PM
Black PhilipPrincess Shaw Brothers! LOL

Mkay?

Coming Attractions (let's hope I get through all of these):
Area 51
The Saint (2017)
Timbuktu
Moonlight
The Bad Kids
Aug 20, 2017 2:16 PM
Thief12
Apex Predator
Who Killed Captain Alex? (I tried getting Rump to watch this for a while now, but since I've given up, I'm passing this on you. Plus, it's on Youtube and under 70 minutes. What can you lose?)

Do you know of a "decent" site where I can see it? All I could find on YouTube and Vimeo was one with a "video joker" and another one with a "commentary".

I think the only ones available are those with the video joker/commentary. They explain at the beginning that there is a low resolution DVD master which is all that's left of the film while its director deleted it from his computer to work on his next film.
Aug 18, 2017 10:36 PM
Presenting Princess Shaw:

In New Orleans, Samantha works as an orderly to elderly patients. But at night and in her spare time, she records her thoughts, dreams, and singing to her (few) YouTube fans.

Meanwhile, in Tel Aviv, music producer Kutiman takes various musical snippets and combines them into a solid beat.

He discovers her one night while go through his musical research. Meanwhile, she goes in search of musical fame performing in nightclubs and auditioning for The Voice.

While she struggles to deal with a rough childhood and keeping the lights on her place, he works on his next work with her as the centerpiece.

Shaw is an extremely likable person. Whether encouraging other musicians to succeed (such as on a bus stop on the way to Atlanta or on the street as they're performing) or having a candid conversation with distant relatives, you feel for her and root for her to succeed.

But like I mentioned earlier, the documentary has questions. Perhaps one can look at this as a collaboration of sorts between the director and the music producer to honor a musician who should have gotten her due by now but for life to get in the way. Perhaps it feels like exploitation (although Kutiman eschews monetization for his works). Perhaps the documentary pushes the limits of the genre to the breaking point by not revealing information to its subject. It's up to you to decide.

The singer is the real deal, however with a voice that reminds me of Macy Gray and Mary J. Blige and a heart of gold.
Aug 18, 2017 10:29 PM
Third of the way into Area 51 and it's feeling like a generic found footage thriller film. So much so that it could well be called Generic Found Footage Thriller and I'd have to agree.

At least the characters haven't annoyed me yet.
Aug 18, 2017 4:47 AM
RockHave we sold everyone on Jess Franco yet?

Nope.
Aug 18, 2017 4:46 AM
Oh and since we're rating the best roles for Depp now:

1. Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl
2. Edward Scissorhands
3. Benny and Joon
Aug 18, 2017 4:45 AM
Thomas H Cullen
Apex PredatorNo, because it couldn't make a good use out of its real-time premise.


That's possibly true, that the story is too flexible in its use of time. But the emotional core of the film is superb

No. It fails to thrill despite using the same real time concept that made 24 addictive for years.

As for emotional core, yeah, a kid is involved. But isn't it just old cliche by now for the bad guys to kidnap the child in order to make the good guy do what they want?

I think there was more appeal in Commando and Taken which dealt with kidnapped kids but found more interesting things to do with the time.
Aug 18, 2017 4:44 AM
Dirty Dancing (2017):

I've had the time of my life? More like wasted two plus hours of my time.

Thirty years ago, an iconic movie entered into theaters on the dog days of August. Essential? Hell no. But it was fun.

I don't know whether Apex saw this one in theaters or had to wait until it showed up on VHS (replete with a diet drink ad). I suspect I saw this one in theaters.

In 2017, ABC decided to remake Dirty Dancing. Perhaps it was the feel of nostalgia that drove this one to the finish.

Or ABC saw the big ratings of Grease Live and Sound of Music and decided it wanted a part of this as well. I suspect the latter.

So Dirty Dancing got filmed for the small screen and ended up on for the May sweeps. How did it do?

It dances like two left feet and warbles as bad as Baby's sister in the first film.

OK, that might have been harsh. But let me air out my complaints with this remake/reboot/reimaging/reconstitution.

1. Remake doesn't seem to understand the original's appeal.

The original Dirty Dancing succeed because a) it was pretty much a fairy tale, b) the chemistry between the two leads was undeniable, and c) the dirty dancing itself was a euphemism for sex.

A: The story is your classic rich girl/poor boy romance with some dancing thrown in (and yeah, it's unrealistic to expect a rookie to become an expert in mambo in a matter of weeks even with plenty o' one-on-one personal instruction thrown in).

B: Reportedly, Jennifer Grey and Patrick Swayze didn't care for each other. But the anger resulted in potent chemistry much like Bruce Willis and Cybil Shepherd at Moonlighting's peak.

C: Essentially, this is a coming of age film with Baby at the center as she learns to fight for what's right and stand up to her father in the course of the film.

How did the remake do?

In its defense, it tried something different in make Baby's character more realistic, casting Abagail Breslin in the lead. Her dancing only appears to have marginally improved in the course of the film.

But it misses the boat because it failed to understand the original appeal.

The chemistry between Breslin and Colt Prattes as Johnny Castle is like two water soaked matches in the middle of a rain storm. Prattes is like a 7 on the dance floor, 9 shirtless, and 2 in acting. His take on the classic line towards the end is just so bad that it's laughable.

The remake/reboot/reimagining/reconstitution sticks mostly with the script so that part works.

2. Film can't make up its mind whether it's a musical or a movie with songs.

There's times in the film when characters up and start to sing. And there's time when they play covers of songs. Film can't make up its mind which route to go so it splits the middle.

And that goes nowhere.

3. Not much to show for the 30 extra minutes.

The original is 100 minutes. The remake is right around 130 or so.

So what does this extra time get used for?

They spend a little time on Baby's sister (Sarah Hyland) who gets upgraded to two dimensions. They throw in a chaste romance with one of Tito's musicians (Tito is played by Billy Dee Williams and pretty much all the charisma is gone now). And she can sing well enough.

They also increase the presence of Baby's mother (Debra Messing). And intro family issues between Baby's mother and father (Bruce Greenwood) because that's just so in this year.

Oh, and Vivian (Katey Sagal) gets an increased presence here as well, complete with her own take of Fever.

The plot itself is more or less the same, but little bitty details get changed here and there. No thieving grandmas here, but they do explain how Baby plans on using the borrowed money to help pay for Penny's (Nicole Scherzinger) abortion (for dance lessons, natch)

The extra time isn't used well enough here, which reminds me of how they botched Rosemary's Baby a few years ago.


4. The dancing isn't dirty enough.

To the shock of no one, they seemed to have sanitized the dance moves here from when the first watermelon is dropped (by Casper Smart, no less).

It feels more like Slightly Impolite Dancing here.

Sex was important in the original coming of age saga. Here, it's an afterthought.


5. The framing story stinks.

The film supposedly begins in 1975 at the debut of the hit Broadway show of Dirty Dancing. LOL, as if jukebox musicals happened at that time.

And it sets itself up for a final gut punch to the fans of the original.

Whoever greenlighted this should go stand in the corner.
Aug 18, 2017 4:39 AM
Thief12
Black Philip
Thief12
Captain TerrorThe only 2 cents I'll add is that whenever you get around to Metropolis, look for the longest, most recent restoration you can find. I've been watching it for about 20 years and I find that whenever they discover new footage, the story becomes easier to follow, more coherent and just better overall. The Kino BluRay is the most up-to-date version as far as I know.

Thanks for this! I also haven't seen any Fritz Lang film; I've wanted to check Metropolis for a while, but always see there are several versions with different durations. I was about to ask this, but you beat me to it. Thanks!

They play the long version on TCM every once in a while.

So is the long version, the "preferred" or "essential" one?

On Amazon, it's called the Restored Authorized edition. So I'm gonna go with essential.
Aug 18, 2017 1:46 AM
No, because it couldn't make a good use out of its real-time premise.
Aug 18, 2017 1:39 AM
Takoma1
Apex Predator
Takoma1
Apex Predator
Presenting Princess Shaw (2016): Not bad. Found myself rooting for Shaw to succeed the entire time. Less uplifting at times than I really needed. Had some problems with how the documentary was presented, which grew once I understood the backstory. Still more good than bad, and her enthusiasm is contagious.

Would you care to elaborate on this bit?
I really liked the film (I had already fallen in love with her track on YouTube) and I thought that the way that the movie slowly introduces her struggles (financial difficulties, her sexuality, her history of sexual abuse) was well paced out and I liked it a lot more than if they'd had a huge exposition dump in the beginning just listing her problems. I liked getting to know her and then finding out more about her past.


Problems on the presentation: It was less how they introduced us to Shaw. Will agree that they did a good job setting things up on her end.

The problem is more along the lines of the parts where Kutiman was watching Shaw for the first time. For some reason, I felt like that was staged. My concern about the truthfulness of the documentary were raised when I read the review by The Metro which indicates how director Ido Haar found Shaw: through Kutiman. Apparently, Kutiman let Haar know that he was going to feature Shaw in his compilation. And so Haar decided to head to New Orleans to follow Shaw.

http://www.metro.us/entertainment/presenting-princess-shaw-is-an-ethically-dubious-doc-on-a-future-star/zsJpez---pIr8g40XvUAYw

It was also touched on in Glenn Kenny's review in RogerEbert.com.

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/presenting-princess-shaw-2016

This process feels ethically questionable at best. But much like Kenny, I was ultimately taken by the uplift and enthusiasm of the film even as I had my qualms about how it was made.

PS: Clever. I thought I was the only one to catch that she was a lesbian.

On one hand, I understand the problem with the "staging", but another part of me feels like if she knew why she was being followed it would have altered her behavior even more than one would alter it just being watched by someone. I did not get the sense that the first time she sees her footage used in the song it was staged. Frankly, she seems like the kind of person who wears her heart on her sleeve. She takes the blessings that come her way, but never strikes me as being at all scheming or manipulative. The scene where Kutiman first sees her might have been staged (ie reenacted), but I have no reason to believe that it didn't happen basically as it is presented.
And as for her sexuality--I mean, it's weird that they don't have her talk a little more about it, but there's a pretty obvious section where she's talking to her girlfriend (and even kissing her) on the bench. But it's so unremarked upon by the movie. Not that it's anyone's business, but I have to imagine that it adds to what is already a pretty stressful life.

I didn't think her scenes were staged. And I do agree that she's 100 percent real. She's very easy to root for. She takes the good and bad and has this maturity about her that presumably came from earlier in her life when she was abused.?
Aug 17, 2017 1:34 AM
MKSI think Bamboozled is one of Lee's masterpieces. I can't think of a better film that attacks the legacy of racism in the entertainment industry. Like most of his late era films, it's perhaps too ambitious for it's own good, but the way it delves into the relevance of minstrel shows, accepted racial roles, the exploitation of one's own race and the cooptation of black culture, such a grandiose assortment of topics, and doesn't buckle under the weight of it is astounding. I think when/if Criterion gives it a proper release, we'll see a reassessment of it as one of the great black films of the 21st century.

But no, Lee is not subtle at all when he doesn't want to be. I tend to think he doesn't need to be, either?

I think it was this lack of subtlety that sank Bamboozled in my eyes. But to each their own...
Aug 17, 2017 12:19 AM
Nosferatu will probably be my prize viewing in my Hauntedweenfest*

*Name to be determined at a later date.
Aug 17, 2017 12:06 AM
Takoma1
Apex Predator
Presenting Princess Shaw (2016): Not bad. Found myself rooting for Shaw to succeed the entire time. Less uplifting at times than I really needed. Had some problems with how the documentary was presented, which grew once I understood the backstory. Still more good than bad, and her enthusiasm is contagious.

Would you care to elaborate on this bit?
I really liked the film (I had already fallen in love with her track on YouTube) and I thought that the way that the movie slowly introduces her struggles (financial difficulties, her sexuality, her history of sexual abuse) was well paced out and I liked it a lot more than if they'd had a huge exposition dump in the beginning just listing her problems. I liked getting to know her and then finding out more about her past.


Problems on the presentation: It was less how they introduced us to Shaw. Will agree that they did a good job setting things up on her end.

The problem is more along the lines of the parts where Kutiman was watching Shaw for the first time. For some reason, I felt like that was staged. My concern about the truthfulness of the documentary were raised when I read the review by The Metro which indicates how director Ido Haar found Shaw: through Kutiman. Apparently, Kutiman let Haar know that he was going to feature Shaw in his compilation. And so Haar decided to head to New Orleans to follow Shaw.

http://www.metro.us/entertainment/presenting-princess-shaw-is-an-ethically-dubious-doc-on-a-future-star/zsJpez---pIr8g40XvUAYw

It was also touched on in Glenn Kenny's review in RogerEbert.com.

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/presenting-princess-shaw-2016

This process feels ethically questionable at best. But much like Kenny, I was ultimately taken by the uplift and enthusiasm of the film even as I had my qualms about how it was made.

PS: Clever. I thought I was the only one to catch that she was a lesbian.
Aug 16, 2017 11:56 PM
Captain TerrorIf someone asked me to recommend a Lang film I wouldn't suggest Destiny as their first, only because it's not the most accessible. So I'm glad to hear you liked it so much, because there's lots more where that came from.
The only 2 cents I'll add is that whenever you get around to Metropolis, look for the longest, most recent restoration you can find. I've been watching it for about 20 years and I find that whenever they discover new footage, the story becomes easier to follow, more coherent and just better overall. The Kino BluRay is the most up-to-date version as far as I know.

Was planning on finding one that's about 150 minutes because I think that's what the restored edition was?

But yeah, I'm catching M this month and maybe Metropolis in September.
Aug 16, 2017 11:41 PM
Xenos
TeamCanadaBills, Jets, & now Dolphins all seem to be treading water in a lake of fiery gasoline, so anything less than 5-1 & the division title should be a choke job for the Patriots.

The only way I think that happens is if Tom Brady drops off a cliff this year. And even then, it seems like Belichick will wave his magic hand and turn Jimmy Garoppolo into a decent QB in case something did happen.

Which is somewhat possible considering Brady turns the big 4-0 this year. But then again, QB at Patriots U runs three deep.

The only way the Saints get in this year is to buy a ticket. Somehow, I expect Atlanta to take a step back this year. But both Tampa and Carolina have more to recommend.

Seriously, we need defense so we go and sign All Day?
Aug 16, 2017 4:11 AM
Will do full reviews tomorrow but here's my basic thoughts.

Dirty Dancing (2017): Once again, filmmakers remake a film without understanding why the original worked or have a clue what they were aiming for (is it a musical, or simply a film with songs?). When Shane Harper has the best performance as a tertiary character, your film is pretty bad. Appreciated the efforts to make Baby's sister and mother to make them more two dimensional instead of one dimension. But film lacks chemistry, heat, much to recommend here. And about that wraparound story...:angry:

Presenting Princess Shaw (2016): Not bad. Found myself rooting for Shaw to succeed the entire time. Less uplifting at times than I really needed. Had some problems with how the documentary was presented, which grew once I understood the backstory. Still more good than bad, and her enthusiasm is contagious.
Aug 16, 2017 4:08 AM
I think it's more fascinating that Beauty and the Beast can be explored as a warning of a Trump America with Gaston being a suitable stand-in for the Tweeter in Chief, the Presidential Apprentice.
Aug 16, 2017 3:57 AM
Quite-Gone Genie
Apex PredatorSo Trump is in David Duke's back pocket? Seems that way based on his comments about what happened in Charlottesville today.

David Duke is trolling for attention and he knows the President won't come out against white supremacy.

It's the opposite of concern trolling; it's praise trolling.

Duke's tweet felt like an Ahem to me. Trump basically said nothing of substance which pleased people in the KKK (or is it Neo Nazi) paper.

While Trump danced around the issue, more mainstream Republicans ripped what happened in Charlottesville. Even though most of them were complicit in saying/doing nothing while Trump was running in 2015-6.

Because it's all about Supreme Court Justices and repealing Obamacare, right?
Aug 14, 2017 2:42 AM