Viddy's Views

Would you say you're "nostalgic" for "The Wonder Years" any more than for Forrest Gump? Your use of the word "nostalgic" often confuses me. For example, you mention that you're not "nostalgic" for American Graffiti and if I recall correctly, you implied that I may be, which is very weird to me because I was six years old and 10 years away from having a driver's license in 1962.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

What's your question?


The movie and the TV shows dealt with similar time periods. People often like things they associate good memories with. I imagine some people like Forrest Gump because it's about a time period they were alive in. I like "The Wonder Years" as a great quality show, but I also have nostalgia for it, not because I was alive during the setting, rather because it reminds me of watching it when I was a kid.

And American Graffiti came out in the 70's I believe.

Anyway mark. Please stop fishing and grow up. It really gets old after awhile dude.

__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201

First off, you answered my question, and I'm glad you're slowly revealing yourself...

Second off, don't you want responses?

I'm not fishing. I'm trying to relate to you. It's just very difficult. I'm glad I made you give me minus rep though. I can't for the life of me think why you did that (except for maybe guilt). I'm quite sure I've plus repped you far more than you have me, but I understand that sometimes things get rough. Go ahead and twist this post now.

I'm glad I could answer your discreet question.


Explain "revealing myself." This implies that you know something about me that other people may not? The elipises at the end of that statement imply that you're being nice and moving on. What am I revealing mark?

And yes I want responses that discuss the films, rather than discussing me. If you go back through this thread you constantly demonstrate a classic passive agressive demenoir. It's immature, and extremely rude. If I dislike a film that you adore ala Jaws of The Professionals, and God knows why, instead of discussing the aspects mentioned you constantly committ the ad hominem fallacy.

With your last post you refer to my dislike of American Graffeti, but you do so in a subdued way that can be taken with multiple meanings. Also you bring up something that was discussed quite a long time ago. I can't figure out why. I guess it's called a grudge. You think I'm an ass, I get it.

Enough with the BS passive agressive shiznit. Again mark, be direct, please. And for ease of reading comprehension I've highlighted the key points that I would like you to be direct on.

Targets (1968, Peter Bogdanovich)



Very interesting film about a seemingly normal young man (Tim O'Kelly) who goes on a sniper rage and kills dozens of people. There is a secondary, though less involving plot of a retiring horror actor (Boris Karloff) in a seemingly semi-autobiographical role who also gets fed up, but instead of killing people, he kills his engagements. The two main characters have a far-fetch climatic run-in at the end of the film.
Certainly a shocking movie, because the shooter is an upstanding young man on the surface. He works for an insurance company, is married, and even calls his father "sir." Maybe that's why the film is shocking because we lack motive for the killing spree. I don't want to say the film is anti-gun because I don't quite read it like that. One could make that argument seeing as how the culprit here is your by-the-book responsible gun owner... well up until the point of the killings. He goes hunting and target practicing with his father, like any good red blooded American would! One of the film's most horrific scenes shows him target shooting with his father and then while his father sets the targets back up he sights him and comes close to pulling the trigger.
I enjoyed the film very much. I think it does expose the truth behind the facade of happy middle America. The family seems happy, but ultimately their relationships with each other are empty and full of by-the-book motions. The film is as equally disturbing on that note as well.
My only complaint with the film is how the Karloff moments and sideplot is connected to the main plot. I thought this could have been handled or written more effectively. Otherwise, it's a gem of an unsettling film.

Grade: A-

Is it just me or that guy in the pic looks a lot like Matt Damon.

My first thought was: "Mark Wahlberg in Shooter"

From a certain angle, yeah maybe.

Matt Damon's the first name that popped into my head when I saw that pic, too GP.

Zombieland (2009, Ruben Fleischer)



Zombieland is a movie where individual scenes standout, but as a whole I really wasn't impressed with the film. There really is no explanation as to why the zombies have taken over the world, but that's never necessary in these types of films. Zombieland goes for comedy and certainly succeeds, but it isn't enough to sustain an already short 88 minute film. The premise is that in zombieland people can survive by following basic rules such as always double-tap your victims and check the back seats of cars before getting in. These will ensure survival, as it has with the film's two main protagonists Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) and Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson). The two of them have sufficient chemistry together as Columbus survives by luck and following the rules as fleeing rabbit contrasting with Tallahassee's shotgun wielding badassness. It works. Harrelson has proven time and time again to be an excellent comedic actor with great timing and an amazing sense of snarling dry wit about him. Tallahassee may as well be Mickey Knox's distant and more subdued cousin. Anyway, the best thing about the film is when the two men, along with a couple of con artist females they tag up with, hide in Bill Murray's house for awhile. Bill Murray's cameo role is as good as any I've seen, including an excellent death scene.
I enjoyed the film but was not captivated by it. There's really no story. The action scenes are a bit boring, the zombies are uninteresting and card board cutout, and aside from the excellent acting I can say I was more involved with the drama within the "Left 4 Dead" videogames. Anywho zombie film lovers certainly shouldn't miss out on this though.

Grade: C+

Still going to wait for this film on DVD. I love Jesse Eisenberg , but the trailers looked so silly that I just couldn't see paying $10 to see it in the theater and then another $10 for popcorn and soda.

Actually it is on DVD and blu-ray right now.

The Taking of Pelham 1, 2, 3 (2009, Tony Scott)




Denzel Washington has certainly put on the pudge of late, meanwhile Travolta looks equally out of shape. Anywho on to the remake of a classic 70's film. I must say the update was interesting and the writers did manage to spin it to a contemporary issue or two, mainly the crappy economy and NYC's fear of terrorism. Or should I say defiance of it? Of course Travolta in the film as the main antagonist is not a terrorist at all, but an ex Wall Street rat and con looking to get revenge on the system. It's a nice change from the more straight forward Robert Vaughn. I must say Vaughn in the original role was a bit more menacing, but at least with this remake Travolta didn't play it completely ham-fisted ala Broken Arrow.
The most impressive bit of the film was watching Denzel Washington in one of his most subdued roles to date. Instead of spewing one liner after one liner and being the cool action hero with plenty of facade, he plays a down to earth subway dispatcher who is stuck in a situation he doesn't want to be in, but knows he can do good with. Also he's a bit morally ambiguous, as the film provides a nice little backstory with his character. For the most part this is a good remake. It lacks the grittiness and urgency of the original and some of the characters are not that drawn out well at all with this remake. Luis Guzman's, a character actor whom I enjoy very much on screen, has a nothing part, but does the best he can with it. Also the ending of the original was much more interesting and involving. I was rather let down with this film's predictable and "hollywood" conclusion, which was a bore. But all in all, this remake was definitely more than what I expected it to be. Even Tony Scott managed to tone his "Tony-Scottness" flair down a bit.

Grade: B-

You got me interested in seeing this one, particularly watching DW in a non-slick role

__________________
Under-the-radar Movie Awesomeness.
http://earlsmoviepicks.blogspot.com/

Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2003, Robert Rodriguez)



I very much enjoy the work of Robert Rodriguez. I was introduced to his films when Desperado played on the big screen and I remember being absolutely floored by the hyperbolic and frenzied gunplay. Unfortunately Once Upon a Time in Mexico, the follow up to that film and El Mariache, is not nearly the showcase that the first two films were in this loose trilogy.
First of all, this film is too big for its own good and just watching it feels like a lot has been cut out in order to keep the fast pace going. The plot seems convoluted at first, but reflecting upon it, there isn't a whole lot of story. Just a lot of characters, various loyalties and sides, and so on. The story features character revels, double-crosses and so forth. It all seems a bit too much. Go with something more simple. For a 103 minute length, the film tries to do too much, and sacrifices any character development or interest. "El" as played by Antonio Banderas is dissolved into a lack luster cinder of the raging flame he was in Desperado. Something the performance is lacking and Banderas almost seems bored. Mickey Rourke is enjoyable, but is in the film far too little with an underwritten character. I get the feeling that some of his scenes must have been cut. Salma Hayek dones the poster of the film, but gets minimal screen time, and is only seen in flashback. Willem Dafoe pops up as one of the main villains... lord knows why. He has nothing to do. Johnny Depp, thankfully, is another story as he delievers one of those memorable and quirky performances that come from another galaxy, but is stuck in a mess of a film, ala Val Kilmer in Tombstone. Certainly the best thing about the film.
Even the action is a bit too stylized. Sure there's gore, blood, and guts, not as much as Desperado, but oh well. The problem is there's really no sense of danger for the characters here. Never did I really care. When "El" jumps off motorcycles and cars, it seems a bit too preposterous like it belongs in a film with the name Bay over the title instead of Rodriguez. Oh well. That's OK. Rodriguez went on to follow this film with a little diamond called Sin City, so I can forgive this piece of coal.

Grade: C-

The Fake blood looked sooooo fake

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

Spoiler much?

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984, Leonard Nemoy)



I've always wondered why so many of the Star Trek movies are directed by the cast members. Did the studio save money on hiring both actor and director in one bundle? I should probably listen to the commentary.
This third entry in the series brings Spock back to life, sort of, after his demise at the end of the second film. Of course it would be impossible to think of the original crew without the legendary Vulcan. I think of this film as tightly paced, and very entertaining. It features Kingons as the main villains and introduces the Bird of Prey, in it's intense look and green coloration. The story is interesting as Spock merges himself with Doc McCoy before his sacrifice. The look of the film is good while on board the starships, but the sets lack appeal when the film is taking place on Genesis. Christopher Lloyd is serviceable as the main heavy, who desperately seeks Genesis as a weapon. It also features members of the Enterprise go rogue. As Star Trek films go this is a great follow up to The Wrath of Khan, even if it isn't remembered by fans as one of the best film entries.

Grade: B-

edit:

Thanks Viddy I am a Star Trek tragic