JohnnyBlaze Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Hamburger Hill. Seemed like a derivative of other Vietnam War flicks. And I wasn't sold on stars Dylan McDermott and Stephen Weber as gritty, experienced military sergeants. Many of the other young supporting cast members seemed somewhat miscast too. I did like Courtney B. Vance in this though. But overall, I was kind of bored and thought "Come on take the hill already you grunts. I have another DVD to watch!" Grade: D 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YYZumbi Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 The last movie I watched was: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61GFmvfSqYL._SY300_.jpg http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2557490/ It was good, but I think Ted is a better movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBlaze Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 http://i.imgur.com/OiUjIrZ.jpg http://i.imgur.com/OMMnObv.jpg I had to Google the Diagnosis Murder part, thinking that Dick Van Dyke had something to do with it, even though he wasn't credited on the DVD cover, and then discovered it was released at least 15+ years before him. Point is, since I wasn't aware of this - any good? You've seen MadHouse a few times haven't you duck? Seems like I've heard you quack about it before.No I hadn't seen this one before JB. I don't remember it being on TV back in the day either. It's got a pretty weak plot which is similar to Theatre of Blood with an actor going mad and murdering people but this one is nowhere near as good. It's a drab film actually and it uses a lot of stock footage of old Price flicks to pad out the film and to serve as the character's career highlights. It's almost like a tribute to Vincent Price rather than a proper film. There's no Madhouse in the film either and in fact there's no particular house where the action takes place, it's a stupid title really. The only thing that makes it worth watching is Price and Peter Cushing who deliver the goods as usual.Vincent Price should be kidnapped from the 1950s and brought here to portray Doctor Strange. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 http://i.imgur.com/OiUjIrZ.jpg http://i.imgur.com/OMMnObv.jpg I had to Google the Diagnosis Murder part, thinking that Dick Van Dyke had something to do with it, even though he wasn't credited on the DVD cover, and then discovered it was released at least 15+ years before him. Point is, since I wasn't aware of this - any good? You've seen MadHouse a few times haven't you duck? Seems like I've heard you quack about it before.No I hadn't seen this one before JB. I don't remember it being on TV back in the day either. It's got a pretty weak plot which is similar to Theatre of Blood with an actor going mad and murdering people but this one is nowhere near as good. It's a drab film actually and it uses a lot of stock footage of old Price flicks to pad out the film and to serve as the character's career highlights. It's almost like a tribute to Vincent Price rather than a proper film. There's no Madhouse in the film either and in fact there's no particular house where the action takes place, it's a stupid title really. The only thing that makes it worth watching is Price and Peter Cushing who deliver the goods as usual.Vincent Price should be kidnapped from the 1950s and brought here to portray Doctor Strange.That could work. I saw the 1978 version of Dr Strange a few months ago. John Mills was in it as the old sorcerer supreme Thomas Lindmer and Jessica Walters played Morgan Le Fay.It wasn't bad really considering. The guy playing Strange was this guy Peter Hooten who was completely unknown to me, he looked the part though I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBlaze Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 http://i.imgur.com/OiUjIrZ.jpg http://i.imgur.com/OMMnObv.jpg I had to Google the Diagnosis Murder part, thinking that Dick Van Dyke had something to do with it, even though he wasn't credited on the DVD cover, and then discovered it was released at least 15+ years before him. Point is, since I wasn't aware of this - any good? You've seen MadHouse a few times haven't you duck? Seems like I've heard you quack about it before.No I hadn't seen this one before JB. I don't remember it being on TV back in the day either. It's got a pretty weak plot which is similar to Theatre of Blood with an actor going mad and murdering people but this one is nowhere near as good. It's a drab film actually and it uses a lot of stock footage of old Price flicks to pad out the film and to serve as the character's career highlights. It's almost like a tribute to Vincent Price rather than a proper film. There's no Madhouse in the film either and in fact there's no particular house where the action takes place, it's a stupid title really. The only thing that makes it worth watching is Price and Peter Cushing who deliver the goods as usual.Vincent Price should be kidnapped from the 1950s and brought here to portray Doctor Strange.That could work. I saw the 1978 version of Dr Strange a few months ago. John Mills was in it as the old sorcerer supreme Thomas Lindmer and Jessica Walters played Morgan Le Fay.It wasn't bad really considering. The guy playing Strange was this guy Peter Hooten who was completely unknown to me, he looked the part though I suppose.Never saw that. I remember it being advertised at the time though. Hooten did a lot of tv work in the 70s so it made sense he was Doctor Strange. And yeah, he pretty much fit appearance-wise. I like Price though. He could play off an arrogant Doc Strange and cite some demon-fighting incantation without sounding like some Harry Potter character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 http://i.imgur.com/OiUjIrZ.jpg http://i.imgur.com/OMMnObv.jpg I had to Google the Diagnosis Murder part, thinking that Dick Van Dyke had something to do with it, even though he wasn't credited on the DVD cover, and then discovered it was released at least 15+ years before him. Point is, since I wasn't aware of this - any good? You've seen MadHouse a few times haven't you duck? Seems like I've heard you quack about it before.No I hadn't seen this one before JB. I don't remember it being on TV back in the day either. It's got a pretty weak plot which is similar to Theatre of Blood with an actor going mad and murdering people but this one is nowhere near as good. It's a drab film actually and it uses a lot of stock footage of old Price flicks to pad out the film and to serve as the character's career highlights. It's almost like a tribute to Vincent Price rather than a proper film. There's no Madhouse in the film either and in fact there's no particular house where the action takes place, it's a stupid title really. The only thing that makes it worth watching is Price and Peter Cushing who deliver the goods as usual.Vincent Price should be kidnapped from the 1950s and brought here to portray Doctor Strange.That could work. I saw the 1978 version of Dr Strange a few months ago. John Mills was in it as the old sorcerer supreme Thomas Lindmer and Jessica Walters played Morgan Le Fay.It wasn't bad really considering. The guy playing Strange was this guy Peter Hooten who was completely unknown to me, he looked the part though I suppose.Never saw that. I remember it being advertised at the time though. Hooten did a lot of tv work in the 70s so it made sense he was Doctor Strange. And yeah, he pretty much fit appearance-wise. I like Price though. He could play off an arrogant Doc Strange and cite some demon-fighting incantation without sounding like some Harry Potter character.I don't like the cast they have up on IMDB for the new Strange film, it pretty much sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBlaze Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 http://i.imgur.com/OiUjIrZ.jpg http://i.imgur.com/OMMnObv.jpg I had to Google the Diagnosis Murder part, thinking that Dick Van Dyke had something to do with it, even though he wasn't credited on the DVD cover, and then discovered it was released at least 15+ years before him. Point is, since I wasn't aware of this - any good? You've seen MadHouse a few times haven't you duck? Seems like I've heard you quack about it before.No I hadn't seen this one before JB. I don't remember it being on TV back in the day either. It's got a pretty weak plot which is similar to Theatre of Blood with an actor going mad and murdering people but this one is nowhere near as good. It's a drab film actually and it uses a lot of stock footage of old Price flicks to pad out the film and to serve as the character's career highlights. It's almost like a tribute to Vincent Price rather than a proper film. There's no Madhouse in the film either and in fact there's no particular house where the action takes place, it's a stupid title really. The only thing that makes it worth watching is Price and Peter Cushing who deliver the goods as usual.Vincent Price should be kidnapped from the 1950s and brought here to portray Doctor Strange.That could work. I saw the 1978 version of Dr Strange a few months ago. John Mills was in it as the old sorcerer supreme Thomas Lindmer and Jessica Walters played Morgan Le Fay.It wasn't bad really considering. The guy playing Strange was this guy Peter Hooten who was completely unknown to me, he looked the part though I suppose.Never saw that. I remember it being advertised at the time though. Hooten did a lot of tv work in the 70s so it made sense he was Doctor Strange. And yeah, he pretty much fit appearance-wise. I like Price though. He could play off an arrogant Doc Strange and cite some demon-fighting incantation without sounding like some Harry Potter character.I don't like the cast they have up on IMDB for the new Strange film, it pretty much sucks.Yeah, I kind of agree. Rachel McAdams? As who?...Clea? Then there's Tilda Swinton? I don't think she sucks but her as The Ancient One? Ejiofor is good...but as Baron Mordo? Cumberbatch seems more like an easy sell to non-comic fan audiences rather than inspired casting. Hell, I'm still trying to get over him as Khan. THAT bothers me even though he does NOT particularly bother me. Might as well cast me as Wong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Inside Out. Pixar's done it again. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 http://i.imgur.com/OiUjIrZ.jpg http://i.imgur.com/OMMnObv.jpg I had to Google the Diagnosis Murder part, thinking that Dick Van Dyke had something to do with it, even though he wasn't credited on the DVD cover, and then discovered it was released at least 15+ years before him. Point is, since I wasn't aware of this - any good? You've seen MadHouse a few times haven't you duck? Seems like I've heard you quack about it before.No I hadn't seen this one before JB. I don't remember it being on TV back in the day either. It's got a pretty weak plot which is similar to Theatre of Blood with an actor going mad and murdering people but this one is nowhere near as good. It's a drab film actually and it uses a lot of stock footage of old Price flicks to pad out the film and to serve as the character's career highlights. It's almost like a tribute to Vincent Price rather than a proper film. There's no Madhouse in the film either and in fact there's no particular house where the action takes place, it's a stupid title really. The only thing that makes it worth watching is Price and Peter Cushing who deliver the goods as usual.Vincent Price should be kidnapped from the 1950s and brought here to portray Doctor Strange.That could work. I saw the 1978 version of Dr Strange a few months ago. John Mills was in it as the old sorcerer supreme Thomas Lindmer and Jessica Walters played Morgan Le Fay.It wasn't bad really considering. The guy playing Strange was this guy Peter Hooten who was completely unknown to me, he looked the part though I suppose.Never saw that. I remember it being advertised at the time though. Hooten did a lot of tv work in the 70s so it made sense he was Doctor Strange. And yeah, he pretty much fit appearance-wise. I like Price though. He could play off an arrogant Doc Strange and cite some demon-fighting incantation without sounding like some Harry Potter character.I don't like the cast they have up on IMDB for the new Strange film, it pretty much sucks.Yeah, I kind of agree. Rachel McAdams? As who?...Clea? Then there's Tilda Swinton? I don't think she sucks but her as The Ancient One? Ejiofor is good...but as Baron Mordo? Cumberbatch seems more like an easy sell to non-comic fan audiences rather than inspired casting. Hell, I'm still trying to get over him as Khan. THAT bothers me even though he does NOT particularly bother me. Might as well cast me as Wong.Yeah they're all wrong for their parts and none of them seem like they'd fit in in the superhero universe. It could turn out to be another Punisher if they're not careful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBlaze Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 http://i.imgur.com/OiUjIrZ.jpg http://i.imgur.com/OMMnObv.jpg I had to Google the Diagnosis Murder part, thinking that Dick Van Dyke had something to do with it, even though he wasn't credited on the DVD cover, and then discovered it was released at least 15+ years before him. Point is, since I wasn't aware of this - any good? You've seen MadHouse a few times haven't you duck? Seems like I've heard you quack about it before.No I hadn't seen this one before JB. I don't remember it being on TV back in the day either. It's got a pretty weak plot which is similar to Theatre of Blood with an actor going mad and murdering people but this one is nowhere near as good. It's a drab film actually and it uses a lot of stock footage of old Price flicks to pad out the film and to serve as the character's career highlights. It's almost like a tribute to Vincent Price rather than a proper film. There's no Madhouse in the film either and in fact there's no particular house where the action takes place, it's a stupid title really. The only thing that makes it worth watching is Price and Peter Cushing who deliver the goods as usual.Vincent Price should be kidnapped from the 1950s and brought here to portray Doctor Strange.That could work. I saw the 1978 version of Dr Strange a few months ago. John Mills was in it as the old sorcerer supreme Thomas Lindmer and Jessica Walters played Morgan Le Fay.It wasn't bad really considering. The guy playing Strange was this guy Peter Hooten who was completely unknown to me, he looked the part though I suppose.Never saw that. I remember it being advertised at the time though. Hooten did a lot of tv work in the 70s so it made sense he was Doctor Strange. And yeah, he pretty much fit appearance-wise. I like Price though. He could play off an arrogant Doc Strange and cite some demon-fighting incantation without sounding like some Harry Potter character.I don't like the cast they have up on IMDB for the new Strange film, it pretty much sucks.Yeah, I kind of agree. Rachel McAdams? As who?...Clea? Then there's Tilda Swinton? I don't think she sucks but her as The Ancient One? Ejiofor is good...but as Baron Mordo? Cumberbatch seems more like an easy sell to non-comic fan audiences rather than inspired casting. Hell, I'm still trying to get over him as Khan. THAT bothers me even though he does NOT particularly bother me. Might as well cast me as Wong.Yeah they're all wrong for their parts and none of them seem like they'd fit in in the superhero universe. It could turn out to be another Punisher if they're not careful.Speaking of Punisher, his next appearance will be in that Netflix Daredevil show. He's going to be played by some dude that used to be in The Walking Dead. And I think it's a good casting for a kick ass show! Doctor Strange seems even riskier than Thor did when it came out. (Though Thor ended up being good, nobody seemed miscast beforehand) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goose Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Avengers: Rise of UltronWhat'd you think?Pretty good, I thought. Scarlett's pretty easy on the eyes, and they did a good job with Ultron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goose Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Still hilarious! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 http://i.imgur.com/OiUjIrZ.jpg http://i.imgur.com/OMMnObv.jpg I had to Google the Diagnosis Murder part, thinking that Dick Van Dyke had something to do with it, even though he wasn't credited on the DVD cover, and then discovered it was released at least 15+ years before him. Point is, since I wasn't aware of this - any good? You've seen MadHouse a few times haven't you duck? Seems like I've heard you quack about it before.No I hadn't seen this one before JB. I don't remember it being on TV back in the day either. It's got a pretty weak plot which is similar to Theatre of Blood with an actor going mad and murdering people but this one is nowhere near as good. It's a drab film actually and it uses a lot of stock footage of old Price flicks to pad out the film and to serve as the character's career highlights. It's almost like a tribute to Vincent Price rather than a proper film. There's no Madhouse in the film either and in fact there's no particular house where the action takes place, it's a stupid title really. The only thing that makes it worth watching is Price and Peter Cushing who deliver the goods as usual.Vincent Price should be kidnapped from the 1950s and brought here to portray Doctor Strange.That could work. I saw the 1978 version of Dr Strange a few months ago. John Mills was in it as the old sorcerer supreme Thomas Lindmer and Jessica Walters played Morgan Le Fay.It wasn't bad really considering. The guy playing Strange was this guy Peter Hooten who was completely unknown to me, he looked the part though I suppose.Never saw that. I remember it being advertised at the time though. Hooten did a lot of tv work in the 70s so it made sense he was Doctor Strange. And yeah, he pretty much fit appearance-wise. I like Price though. He could play off an arrogant Doc Strange and cite some demon-fighting incantation without sounding like some Harry Potter character.I don't like the cast they have up on IMDB for the new Strange film, it pretty much sucks.Yeah, I kind of agree. Rachel McAdams? As who?...Clea? Then there's Tilda Swinton? I don't think she sucks but her as The Ancient One? Ejiofor is good...but as Baron Mordo? Cumberbatch seems more like an easy sell to non-comic fan audiences rather than inspired casting. Hell, I'm still trying to get over him as Khan. THAT bothers me even though he does NOT particularly bother me. Might as well cast me as Wong.Yeah they're all wrong for their parts and none of them seem like they'd fit in in the superhero universe. It could turn out to be another Punisher if they're not careful.Speaking of Punisher, his next appearance will be in that Netflix Daredevil show. He's going to be played by some dude that used to be in The Walking Dead. And I think it's a good casting for a kick ass show! Doctor Strange seems even riskier than Thor did when it came out. (Though Thor ended up being good, nobody seemed miscast beforehand)I think they may need to re-think some of this casting before they start actually shooting the film. I've not seen any of these netflix TV shows yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invisible airwave Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Avengers: Rise of UltronWhat'd you think?Pretty good, I thought. Scarlett's pretty easy on the eyes, and they did a good job with Ultron. I actually prefer Olsen over Johansson in looks AND acting. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 http://i.imgur.com/UXPBygE.jpg http://i.imgur.com/HiI0NLK.jpg This 1973 version of Frankenstein might be the best one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBlaze Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 http://i.imgur.com/UXPBygE.jpg http://i.imgur.com/HiI0NLK.jpg This 1973 version of Frankenstein might be the best one.I think Chris Plummer is best as a conceited, VIP-type villain. Assume he's Holmes in that flick though. Also, I just realized a few months ago that he's the dad of Honey Bunny from Pulp Fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBlaze Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Avengers: Rise of UltronWhat'd you think?Pretty good, I thought. Scarlett's pretty easy on the eyes, and they did a good job with Ultron.Yeah, Ultron Spader was quite good. And too right about Scarlett. She's a feast for the eyes. I had a few problems with Vision (one of my favorite superhero characters of all time) and the general use of some of the heroes (Hawkeye, Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver) in it. However, the popcorn scenes (ex: Hulk vs Hulkbuster Iron Man) were awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 (edited) http://i.imgur.com/UXPBygE.jpg http://i.imgur.com/HiI0NLK.jpg This 1973 version of Frankenstein might be the best one.I think Chris Plummer is best as a conceited, VIP-type villain. Assume he's Holmes in that flick though. Also, I just realized a few months ago that he's the dad of Honey Bunny from Pulp Fiction.Yeah he's Holmes and he's pretty good as him but I didn't like that Jack the Ripper version it was slow and concentrated on parts of the story that were way too far off on a tangent for my liking. I prefer the 1988 version with Michael Caine I watched yesterday. Honey Bunny is Plummer's Frankenstein! Edited July 17, 2015 by treeduck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeanMeanPride Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 Just got back from Inside Out. Best Pixar idea in a decade or longer if you ask me. Go see this movie!!! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 Just got back from Inside Out. Best Pixar idea in a decade or longer if you ask me. Go see this movie!!! I just saw this a few days ago myself. Really liked it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 I cannot wait to see Inside Out! I haven't been completely enthralled by a Pixar movie since Toy Story 3 (did Up come first?). I really enjoyed Brave, but it was mostly Disney princess clichés set against a gorgeously animated scenic background. The rest were just OK. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invisible airwave Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 Trainwreck This was a disappointment. Apatow needs to learn that 2 hours running time and pop culture references do not a comedy classic alone make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 Trainwreck This was a disappointment. Apatow needs to learn that 2 hours running time and pop culture references do not a comedy classic alone make. Has he actually made any decent comedies yet? Before you answer that question, has he anything to do with Forgetting Sarah Marshall or The 40 Year Old Virgin? I liked them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Principled Man Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 http://www.flickeringmyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Ant-Man-71.jpg Better than I thought it would be! Excellent performances all around. Evangaline Lilly was brilliant, and Michael Douglas was even better. As it was a Paul Rudd film, there were lots of laughs....perhaps too many. In a superhero film, there is always that balance of serious drama and comedy that few directors achieve. The dialogue was pretty sharp overall. Perhaps a bit too much time was spent on setting up Rudd's character of Scott Lang and how he became Ant Man, but it didn't detract from the film. Good show! I was entertained quite a bit! I give it a 7/10. :ebert: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod in Toronto Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 http://www.flickeringmyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Ant-Man-71.jpg Better than I thought it would be! Excellent performances all around. Evangaline Lilly was brilliant, and Michael Douglas was even better. As it was a Paul Rudd film, there were lots of laughs....perhaps too many. In a superhero film, there is always that balance of serious drama and comedy that few directors achieve. The dialogue was pretty sharp overall. Perhaps a bit too much time was spent on setting up Rudd's character of Scott Lang and how he became Ant Man, but it didn't detract from the film. Good show! I was entertained quite a bit! I give it a 7/10. :ebert: Just watched it myself, and was equally surprised! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts