I Just Watched...

[Masha]

I watched this over several weeks as it unfolded on Fox. Definitely a show with quite a few surprises as one player after another who seemed like they would go the distance cracked under pressure. Some of the categories were easier than others.

I was disappointed that the categories for movies and Oscar winners were so heavily weighted towards the last decade. I had no clue to many of them and did not even recognize the names when they were revealed. I did find it odd when the contestant passed when shown the most iconic image from: Casablanca!

I kept track on one episode only: I knew every image shown to both contestants with no hesitation for four of the duels! I know that I would not have won even a single duel in any of varied sports and music categories. "Country and Western", "Hip-Hop" and "One Hit Wonders" were ones wherein I did not know even a single answer. There was one category outside sports and music in which I scored zero but my brain refuses to remember which it was.

I found the format quite intriguing. I do admit that I find it slightly unfair. One contestant won seven duels. Five others each won five duels. The overall winner won only three duels. Which categories were available for each challenge was a matter of luck.

I must wonder if the graphics on the floor were at least partially projections from below or were all added post-production.

There were ten one-hour episodes. Every contestant wore exactly the same clothes in each episode. I know that most half-hour game shows record many episodes in one day but I doubt that they could handle more than perhaps three of these episodes in one day. I learned of this programme by reading a mention of an off-strip book taking bets on who would win the twenty-thousand-dollar bonus in each episode. I wonder how much security the producers had to avoid pre-air reveals.

I am not a fan of: Rob Lowe when he was a darling of Hollywood but I was certainly surprised that he has already fallen so low as to be hosting a game show.

I admit a bit of pettiness that I actually clapped when pink-suit-trash-talker failed so spectacularly.

[CinemaInternational]

I watched this over several weeks as it unfolded on Fox. Definitely a show with quite a few surprises as one player after another who seemed like they would go the distance cracked under pressure. Some of the categories were easier than others.

I was disappointed that the categories for movies and Oscar winners were so heavily weighted towards the last decade. I had no clue to many of them and did not even recognize the names when they were revealed. I did find it odd when the contestant passed when shown the most iconic image from: Casablanca!

I kept track on one episode only: I knew every image shown to both contestants with no hesitation for four of the duels! I know that I would not have won even a single duel in any of varied sports and music categories. "Country and Western", "Hip-Hop" and "One Hit Wonders" were ones wherein I did not know even a single answer. There was one category outside sports and music in which I scored zero but my brain refuses to remember which it was.

I found the format quite intriguing. I do admit that I find it slightly unfair. One contestant won seven duels. Five others each won five duels. The overall winner won only three duels. Which categories were available for each challenge was a matter of luck.

I must wonder if the graphics on the floor were at least partially projections from below or were all added post-production.

There were ten one-hour episodes. Every contestant wore exactly the same clothes in each episode. I know that most half-hour game shows record many episodes in one day but I doubt that they could handle more than perhaps three of these episodes in one day. I learned of this programme by reading a mention of an off-strip book taking bets on who would win the twenty-thousand-dollar bonus in each episode. I wonder how much security the producers had to avoid pre-air reveals.

I am not a fan of: Rob Lowe when he was a darling of Hollywood but I was certainly surprised that he has already fallen so low as to be hosting a game show.

I admit a bit of pettiness that I actually clapped when pink-suit-trash-talker failed so spectacularly.

I kind of expected that the movie categories would skew newer, but I wish they had included some earlier films, because as it stood, it looked as though it could just be recent airings on HBO. It is pretty sad when Casablanca wasn't recognized. And given their enduring popularity, I was shocked that they didn't have images for My Fair Lady or The Sound of Music. Instead, they had Coda, which already feels as though it is little talked-about.

I didn't do well with the sports categories, and Hip-Hop wasn't much better for me. The last category (Fashion) was another that had a lot of faces I didn't know....

I was disappointed by the round of 80s Television, which focused almost completely on fluffy, kid-oriented sitcoms (My Two Dads and Silver Spoons? Really?) while largely ignoring the truly good shows of the era (St. Elsewhere, Cagney and Lacey, Newhart, LA Law, thirtysomething, China Beach, etc.). And they threw in a ringer: The Facts of Life debuted in August of 1979. Oh well, at least Moonlighting and Murder She Wrote were included. But it's surprising that they could not even include Dynasty....

As for Rob Lowe, I know he has kind of been a TV fixture since 1999 wandering from one show to another (West Wing, Brothers and Sisters, Parks and Recreation, 911:Lone Star) and assume he was made host because the latter show is also a Fox show, and they probably got a discount for having him host as well. I think he was fine here, and I did have to chuckle a little when his eyes bulged in the child star round when one of the contestants passed on an image of Jodie Foster, his co-star in 1984's notorious The Hotel New Hampshire.

And yes, the man in the hot pink suit was awfully sure of himself, and then, when it was his turn, he dropped like a stone. Excessive vanity does nobody any favors, and it's irritating to see.

[dianedebuda]

I only recall seeing Cocoon once... I still kind of liked it overall, but it's not a masterpiece or anything.

Agree it's not a masterpiece, but don't think it was made with aims of being anything more than a couple of hours of relaxing entertainment.

Spielberg has made some great films (ET, The Color Purple, Empire of the Sun), but also some that just don't work (1941, Hook, Amistad, The Post). And he had two very good films that missed masterpiece status because of one decison (Schindler's List, AI).

So what was the one decision that made those miss masterpiece status for you? After seeing your brief list of how you rate some of his films, I ventured over IMDB to see a full list of his films. Guess I've seen about 2/3 of them; some I like, some not. A lot of them I only remember seeing after reading the synopsis ... like the A.I. that you mention. So guess that one didn't even come close to masterpiece for me.

[CinemaInternational]

I only recall seeing Cocoon once... I still kind of liked it overall, but it's not a masterpiece or anything.

Agree it's not a masterpiece, but don't think it was made with aims of being anything more than a couple of hours of relaxing entertainment.

Spielberg has made some great films (ET, The Color Purple, Empire of the Sun), but also some that just don't work (1941, Hook, Amistad, The Post). And he had two very good films that missed masterpiece status because of one decison (Schindler's List, AI).

So what was the one decision that made those miss masterpiece status for you? After seeing your brief list of how you rate some of his films, I ventured over IMDB to see a full list of his films. Guess I've seen about 2/3 of them; some I like, some not. A lot of them I only remember seeing after reading the synopsis ... like the A.I. that you mention. So guess that one didn't even come close to masterpiece for me.

AI had trouble with some tonal whiplash (perhaps because it was originally supposed to be a Kubrick project). It's a very dark story, and at times, Spielberg has it waffling toward sentiment, and I'm not sure if it fully comes off in the end.

Schindler's List, on the other hand, the issue is very clear: Liam Neeson is far too low-key and introspective in the role except for his big scene at the end. And as such, the one character that is supposed to be importantgets swamped in the personality stakes by all three of the main supporting players (Kingsley, Fiennes, and Embeth Davidtz), thus creating an imbalance at the center of the film. I wish they had hired some actor who was a bit livelier, like maybe Kevin Kline.

[dianedebuda]

AI had trouble with some tonal whiplash (perhaps because it was originally supposed to be a Kubrick project). It's a very dark story, and at times, Spielberg has it waffling toward sentiment, and I'm not sure if it fully comes off in the end.

From what I read, most of the sentiment suprisingly came from Kubrick. I can't think of a single Kubrick film that I've liked except Sparticus (1960) where he didn't put much of "his" stamp on the movie's tone.

Schindler's List, on the other hand, the issue is very clear: Liam Neeson is far too low-key and introspective in the role except for his big scene at the end. And as such, the one character that is supposed to be important gets swamped in the personality stakes by all three of the main supporting players (Kingsley, Fiennes, and Embeth Davidtz), thus creating an imbalance at the center of the film. I wish they had hired some actor who was a bit livelier, like maybe Kevin Kline.

Disagree. If Neeson's character wasn't continually perceived as low-key, he wouldn't have pulled off what he did. When I watched it years ago, felt his Schindler character was wearing a mask that well hid his innerself. Been years since I've seen this, but that's was my take-away.

[Lorna]

I really need to see EMPIRE OF THE SUN one of these days.

[kingrat]

I really need to see EMPIRE OF THE SUN one of these days.

Me too, Lorna. I've never seen Schindler's List, either.

Spielberg films always have an admirable level of craft, whether they are favorites of mine or not. He also understands the mass audience, what it wants, what it will tolerate. In that respect he is much closer to Hitchcock than directors like Truffaut who claim to be influenced by him. Spielberg has maintained a directing career over decades, like the old school Hollywood directors. Very promising directors in the 60s, 70s, and 80s could not.

[Lorna]

I really need to see EMPIRE OF THE SUN one of these days.

Me too, Lorna. I've never seen Schindler's List, either.

Spielberg films always have an admirable level of craft, whether they are favorites of mine or not. He also understands the mass audience, what it wants, what it will tolerate.

I tried to read the source novel (for EMPIRE OF THE SUN, by JG BALLARD, I think?) and couldn't make it too far in- it's entirely possible this was my fault, but I recall finding the first 10-20 pages REALLY cold and aloof and a challenge.

(sigh) SCHINDLER'S LIST...I kinda sorta furrow my brow and cross my arms at this one, because it's not a bad movie, but there was something about it coming at THAT MOMENT IN FILM (1993) and THAT MOMENT IN SPIELBERG'S CAREER (he had never won BEST DIRECTOR and been snubbed in various ways, even being nominated when his films weren't) and then- of course- the HISTORY OF IT tied-up with the fact that it was a film about THE JEWISH WWII experience from a JEWISH DIRECTOR OF SUCH REPUTE that made it kinda DARE YOU CRITICIZE IT.

(Or make out in the back row.)

BUT here's the thing, it's less a film about THE JEWISH EXPERIENCE in WWII than it is about A WHITE KNIGHT SAVIOR and how HE VIEWS and how HE IS AFFECTED by THE JEWISH EXPERIENCE IN WWII** and for me, that is a classic HOLLYWOOD COP-OUT of a GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT/TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD variety

**And when I say "THE JEWISH EXPERIENCE IN WWII" yes, i do mean THE HOLOCAUST, which is some heavy **** I know.

Me personally, I would;ve HONEST TO GOD BEEN FINE if SPIELBERG had been nominated for and even won BEST DIRECTOR for JURASSIC PARK.

[CinemaInternational]

With only a couple days to the Oscars, one of the Best Picture nominees for this year has just turned up on MGM+ (and maybe Amazon Prime too), so I hastened to take a look at it.

The film is American Fiction (2023, from the recently reestablished Orion Pictures), and while the film isn't really cohesive ( one part is straightforward drama, and the other half is biting satire) and has some trouble navigating its constant switches between the two storylines and moods, what is good here isn't just good; it's terrific, alive in the way that so few films actually are anymore: daring, mature, honest, and brave.

The story tells the tale of a writer (Jeffrey Wright), recently dismissed from a job as a college professor (for ticking off students by dealing head-on with controversial slurs of the past), who ends up having to pick up the pieces and look out for the care for his Alzheimer's affected mother (Leslie Uggums) after the unexpected death of his sister (Tracee Ellis Ross, daughter of Diana). He also finds a new romance, and has to deal with other assorted faces from his past, such as his gay brother (Sterling K. Brown). This is the straight drama side, and its decent enough.

But the satire side is exceptional. This writer has written several books that were eloquently written with nuanced characters that still failed to sell many copies, and he is intensely dismayed at how most of the depictions of African -Americans in popular culture (both in books and the visual arts) are trading on the negative tropes of the ghetto. Particularly peeved after his latest book was rejected for publication and desperate to get money to help pay for a nursing home for his mother, he sits down and, under a pseudonym, writes a story that contains all the elements of the stories he dislikes (poor diction, excessive swearing, drugs, absent fathers, inner-city violence), just simply to make a point. It gets out of control when the publisher loves the lesser book, it becomes a big hit, and soon he is caught up in a literary and cinematic world of big money and excessive patronizing pandering. The film is absolutely merciless in its demolition of the world of literary awards and praised films, pointing out that the ones in charge of such things, and society in general, would rather fulfill race quotas and gush over something depicting bad behavior by or doled out to African-Americans then to actually hire African-Americans on actual work merit or go for something more nuanced and intelligent that would truly represent their heritage. This dialogue is so remarkably pointed, so funny, so true-to-life that it's a marvel that the film ever got made in this day and age. Its also pretty ironic that it finds itself up for Best Picture in the first year that they put in quota requirements for a film to be eligible for the Oscars top prize, kind of illustrating and highlighting its main point.

So, the film is a bit mixed, but when part of a film sets off as many sparks as this one does, one can't quibble. Talent is clearly there, on both sides of the camera. Such boldness should be celebrated and it is so great to see a modern film that isn't stuck on autopilot.

[skimpole]

I rewatched Calvacade this week, and was struck again about how bland and uninteresting it was. Coward is an acquired taste, but this is well below In Which we Serve or Brief Encounter

[Bronxgirl48]

Ronald Colman is terrific in A DOUBLE LIFE but I always find "theatre-noir" kind of arch and just, well. unappealing for some reason. (like THE VELVET TOUCH and parts of THE UNSUSPECTED) I was wondering if our host was going to mention the anecdote of how Colman comforted a very nervous Shelley Winters in her first screen appearance (she's great! So in the moment, "fresh" -- in more ways than one,lol, and modern) as a tawdry waitress taking his restaurant order at the Italian restaurant. But he didn't. Instead, "egregious racism and blackface" was mentioned "even in the 1965 Olivier OTHELLO" Oy! But, okay.....I am calm, I am relaxed, lol....

[Lorna]

With only a couple days to the Oscars, one of the Best Picture nominees for this year has just turned up on MGM+ (and maybe Amazon Prime too), so I hastened to take a look at it.

POOR THINGS was on HULU and I made it almost all the way through and didn't hate it- it was actually a pretty clever story (kinda of a JEANETTE WINTERSON novel told by JAMES WHALE as an EROTIC TABLEAU film of the 1970s with a lot of DAVID LYNCH thrown in) and had some very funny things to say about HOW THE WORLD TREATS WOMEN- unfortunately it was drowned in a bunch of HIGHLY DISTRACTING candy colored CGI which inexplicably set the movie- which would have made perfect sense in the 19th century- in some sort of weirdassed MIYAZAKI-eesque STEAMPUNK alternaverse and that (and the persistent commercials) WRECKED IT FOR ME- along with an unecessary scene where the heroine (who was played very very very well by EMMA STONE- she gives up THE BUSH and EVERYTHING!) has sex in front of two young boys...made RAMBLING ROSE look tame.

MARK RUFFALO who has been nominated for BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR gives one of THE WORST PERFORMANCES I HAVE EVER SEEN IN ALL MY LIFE ON STAGE, TV, OR SCREEN, and there is another pretty important character who was played by someone who was also really, really, really bad.

WILLEM DEFOE was really good though, WHY HE DIDN'T GET NOMINATED IS BEYOND ME.

THE GREEN SCREEN "REAR PROJECTION" WORK IS LITERALLY THIS BAD THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE ****ING THING:



SIGH.

Modern cinema, it is what it is. (a variation on RUSSIAN ROULETTE)

[Darla]

Just watched Another Dawn yesterday for the first time, with Errol Flynn & Kay Francis & Ian Hunter. I liked it!

[CinemaInternational]

With only a couple days to the Oscars, one of the Best Picture nominees for this year has just turned up on MGM+ (and maybe Amazon Prime too), so I hastened to take a look at it.

POOR THINGS was on HULU and I made it almost all the way through and didn't hate it- it was actually a pretty clever story (kinda of a JEANETTE WINTERSON novel told by JAMES WHALE as an EROTIC TABLEAU film of the 1970s with a lot of DAVID LYNCH thrown in) and had some very funny things to say about HOW THE WORLD TREATS WOMEN- unfortunately it was drowned in a bunch of HIGHLY DISTRACTING candy colored CGI which decided to set the movie- which would have made perfect sense in the 19th century- in some sort of weirdassed MIYAZAKI-eesque STEAMPUNK alternaverse and that (and the persistent commercials) WRECKED IT FOR ME- along with an unecessary scene where the heroine (who was played very very very well by EMMA STONE- she gives up THE BUSH and EVERYTHING!) has sex in front of two young boys...made RAMBLING ROSE look tame.

MARK RUFFALO who has been nominated for BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR gives one of THE WORST PERFORMANCES I HAVE EVER SEEN IN ALL MY LIFE ON STAGE, TV, OR SCREEN, and there is another pretty important character who was played by someone who was also really, really, really bad.

WILLEM DEFOE was really good though.

THE GREEN SCREEN "REAR PROJECTION" WORK IS LITERALLY THIS BAD THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE ****ING THING:



SIGH.

Modern cinema, it is what it is. (a variation on RUSSIAN ROULETTE)

Yeah.... I'm not exactly sure I could quite handle this film's boldness...and I know that seems odd coming from someone who sat through Showgirls, The Postman Always Rings Twice (1981), and 9½ Weeks, but there it is....

Rambling Rose looks tame in comparison? Oh, dear. I was quite offended by that film's scene involving Laura Dern and Lukas Haas in bed, so that just adds more ammunition to my idea of skipping it.....

I was quite surprised on nomination morning that Dafoe wasn't nominated, given the bear hug the Academy gave to the film, and given that Dafoe is a previous four-time nominee.

So, was Ruffalo's performance quite at the low tide level of Billy Zane in Titanic/Wings Hauser on Murder She Wrote, or was he even lower? I know that at one time, he was talented, but he keeps getting twitchier and hammier the more years go on..... The other one you thought was bad was likely Jarrod Carmichael; I have heard that his performance was quite bad.

[Lorna]

With only a couple days to the Oscars, one of the Best Picture nominees for this year has just turned up on MGM+ (and maybe Amazon Prime too), so I hastened to take a look at it.

POOR THINGS

Yeah.... I'm not exactly sure I could quite handle this film's boldness...and I know that seems odd coming from someone who sat through Showgirls, The Postman Always Rings Twice (1981), and 9½ Weeks, but there it is....

OH HONEY,

I was getting ready to send you a PM to explicitly tell you: NO, YOU COULD NOT HANDLE THIS MOVIE.
it would break you.
HONESTLY.

(you and I have a lot in common, but I DEFINITELY have more tolerance of DEPRAVITY. ALSO, THIS MOVIE LEGIT MAKES "SHOWGIRLS" LOOK LIKE "LITTLE WOMEN"- THE JUNE ALLYSON VERSION!!!!)