Kevin Bacon
-
Posts
3,502 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by Kevin Bacon
-
-
Goddammit, I knew I was right to be disappointed they were making a Blair Witch sequel. And on deck for them, Death Note and I Saw the Devil. I really hope they aren't two more wastes of talent. It'd be a real shame for such a promising career to be derailed by a string of unneeded adaptations.
I have faith that they can do I Saw the Devil justice. Death Note is a total mystery to me though. Has there ever been a great North American live-action Manga adaptation?
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, CJohn said:
I was looking at RT where it has a 68% fresh rating, while Blair Witch is slowly going below 50%.
What do you mean below 50%? It's above 50%. And given the average rating, it's likely to stay right near where it is.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, CJohn said:
They are glowing compared to the ones of Blair Witch lol.
59 Metacritic versus 53 Metacritic, Captain Hyperbole.
-
1
-
-
As the biggest fan of Wingard and Barrett on here (I made the thread when the movie was still called The Woods, and I never post threads in this forum), this isn't horribly surprising to me. The original film was one of the most divisive horror movies of all-time, and it's a very specific film that making a sequel that's true to the first movie, scary, and completely original is a tall, tall order. Now, I would've preferred if the movie just wasn't a Blair Witch Project sequel and was rather just scary and original, rather than worrying about faithfulness, and that movie would probably have been better received than this one. But as long as it's been known that it is in fact a Blair Witch sequel, this was the reception it was bound to get. And it's not even poor reception. It's just mixed. Which isn't bad. When was the last found-footage horror film to get universally glowing reviews? Even the first Paranormal Activity had plenty of detractors. The recent trend in critically-acclaimed horror is a result of a much higher standard of filmmaking in movies like It Follows and The Babadook. Unless they completely reinvent the wheel, you aren't getting that in a shaky-cam movie that takes place in the woods.
-
3
-
-
While I don't care what a couple of jamokes on YouTube and message boards have to say when the actual reviews are glowing, I do think this will probably be Wingard and Barrett's lowest rated film since A Horrible Way to Die. Not because I think it won't be as good as their prior output, but because this is their first straight horror film that isn't doused with satire and dark humor. It's a lot easier to get a 90%+ RT rating with a self-aware genre picture than it is a serious horror film, unless it's something that transcends the genre like The Babadook or It Follows. This could be the consensus best horror movie of the year and still end up with a decent portion of mixed reviews.
I do think it'll be much better than Evil Dead though. That movie was brilliantly directed, but had a pretty thoroughly mediocre script that shouldn't be the case with a Barrett-penned movie.
-
2
-
-
And I just noticed on Fandango that September 16 is listed as a "limited" release and won't play anywhere near me. What the hell is this? If I have to wait to see this movie I've been pimping out since it was just The Woods while everyone else raves about it online there will be hell to pay.
-
1
-
-
100% on RT with an 8.2 average rating through the first eight reviews. Hardly surprising given the track record of Wingard and Barrett, but encouraging nonetheless.
-
2
-
-
20 hours ago, CoolioD1 said:
and the guest is honestly one of my favourite films of the decade. pure ownage.
Isn't that the truth. Movie made me feel like a little kid.
-
I'm still not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, nothing about the movie that had me excited has changed. On the other, I don't know, I was really looking forward to The Woods. I like things being original. The Woods was going to be for me. Now it's for everybody.
But the same people are still the ones who made it, and the reviews are initially glowing. Worst case scenario, it isn't as good as The Guest or You're Next but it's still pretty good and Barrett and Wingard get a big well-deserved paycheck because those movies didn't get anything approaching the attention they deserved (especially The Guest).
Another thing: with this, then Death Note, and then possibly the Halloween reboot... it may be a while before we get another original property from these guys.
-
1
-
-
51 minutes ago, CaptainJackSparrow said:
Well, fuck.
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, CoolioD1 said:
Obliged.
Holy shit they nominated Margo Martindale for Guest Actress on The Americans again. They'll give that woman a nomination for anything, considering she's done fuck all on that show since the second season.
-
Unfortunately the full list with writing and directing noms isn't to be found right now.
The big story here is that the Emmy voters actually watched The Americans this year, as in its fourth season it finally gets the attention it's deserved for a long time. A (well-deserved) victory doesn't seem likely, but it's exciting it finally made it in.
On the other hand, The Leftovers was snubbed entirety, which means Justin Theroux, Carrie Coon, Ann Dowd, Regina King, Christopher Eccleston, etc etc are all in the dark for their terrific performances. And completely unsurprisingly, FXX's terrific You're the Worst might as well not exist, which is a shame not only for the writers but for Aya Cash who put on the best performance in any comedy in the past year.
-
Lead Actor in a Drama Series
Kyle Chandler – Bloodline
Rami Malek – Mr. Robot
Bob Odenkirk – Better Call Saul
Matthew Rhys – The Americans
Liev Schreiber – Ray Donovan
Kevin Spacey – House of CardsLead Actress in a Drama Series
Claire Danes – Homeland
Viola Davis – How to Get Away with Murder
Taraji P. Henson – Empire
Tatiana Maslany – Orphan Black
Keri Russell – The Americans
Robin Wright – House of CardsLead Actor in a Limited Series or Movie
Bryan Cranston – All The Way
Benedict Cumberbatch Sherlock
Idris Elba – Luther
Cuba Gooding Jr. – The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story
Tom Hiddleston – The Night Manager
Courtney B. Vance – The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime StoryLead Actress in a Limited Series or Movie
Kirsten Dunst – Fargo
Felicity Huffman – American Crime
Audra McDonald – Lady Day at Emerson’s Bar and Grill
Sarah Paulson – The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story
Lili Taylor – American Crime
Kerry Washington – ConfirmationLead Actor in a Comedy Series
Anthony Anderson – Blackish
Aziz Ansari – Master of None
Will Forte – Last Man on Earth
William H. Macy – Shameless
Thomas Middleditch – Silicon Valley
Jeffrey Tambor – TransparentLead Actress in a Comedy Series
Ellie Kemper – Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt
Julia Louis-Dreyfus – Veep
Laurie Metcalf – Getting On
Tracee Ellis Ross – Black-ish
Amy Schumer – Inside Amy Schumer
Lily Tomlin – Grace and FrankieReality Series
The Amazing Race
American Ninja Warrior
Dancing with the Stars
Project Runway
Top Chef
The VoiceVariety Series
Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee
Jimmy Kimmel Live
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver
The Late Late Show with James Corden
Real Time with Bill Maher
The Tonight Show starring Jimmy FallonTV Movie
A Very Murray Christmas
All The Way
Confirmation
Luther
SherlockLimited Series
American Crime
Fargo
The Night Manager
The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story
RootsComedy Series
Black-ish
Master of None
Modern Family
Silicon Valley
Transparent
Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt
VeepDrama Series
The Americans
Better Call Saul
Downton Abbey
Game of Thrones
Homeland
House of Cards
Mr. Robot -
2 hours ago, rukaio101 said:
It's funny because I did initially wonder that when I saw the movie for the first time, whether it actually should've been split into two parts, or at the very least whether it needed an extra hour or so to develop its plot and characters better. Ultimately, though, I don't think so. I think the movie's main problem is just a poor allocation of time to the necessary plot threads. I maintain that the Stryker/Wolverine segment, as enjoyable as it was, should've and could've been cut entirely and the screentime allocated to Apocalypse and his Horsemen so their threads don't feel so utterly threadbare and rushed.
I completely disagree with the idea though that 'Apocalypse is too major a threat to fit in one movie' because that's just silly. No villain is 'too big for one movie'. I know Thanos has got it into people's head that these super major villains need like 10 movies to build them up to do them justice, but they really don't. A single, contained, well-told story can do it just as well.
Maybe "too big a threat" was the wrong phrasing. Too important, too big of a character. With the hype surrounding him, with his legacy as THE villain in this universe, with the scope of the conflict he represents--I think it'd be hard to introduce, develop, and kill that character in the span of a single movie and do it justice. Sure, they could've done a much better job than they did, but I think to truly accomplish the full potential afforded by this story, a six-act story would've been much better.
And while I agree that if anything were cut from the movie we have to allocate runtime elsewhere, it'd be the entire Wolverine sequence, I do understand the reason putting it in the movie beyond getting Jackman on screen. The big cliffhanger at the end of DOFP was "what's going on with Mystique and Logan", it'd be pretty jarring and borderline continuity-breaking for it to not even be addressed in the next movie. Which is why I'd have just given it more significant screen time in Part One.
-
1
-
-
The more I've thought about it, if any movie ever warranted being split into two parts, it's this one. Apocalypse is simply too major a threat to contain into one movie without it feeling anti-climactic and forgettable when they kill him, especially when you're cramming so many other plots in there.
Make this movie about his rise and assembly of his horsemen, while we get to know the new team members and students and we can also deal a bit more in depth with what's happened to Wolverine after DOFP without it feeling like an awkward extended cameo. The movie ends with either the Horsemen turning on Apocalypse to help the X-Men escape before he kills them all, or with him claiming some sort of shocking victory, killing off a main cast member or destroying much of the world with the nukes like I suggested earlier.
Then, in the next movie, we deal with the fallout of the first's finale and eventually lead up to the real final battle, which will feel much more important when the story's actually had time to breath, characters have had time to grow, and we've really gotten a real look at how dangerous Apocalypse is. Because as it stands, the final battle begins after about an hour and a half of build-up, with a ton of different stuff crammed in. Apocalypse is a much better villain than, say, Ronin, but he certainly didn't feel like much more important with how little build-up there was to his death.
-
1
-
-
I liked it, but "uneven" is definitely the right word. I think the set-up was all terrific (awkward Wolverine segment aside) and the final act was a letdown. Apocalypse was a villain who had been built up as so powerful that it was very anti-climactic when pretty much half the movie took place fighting him in the desert. There needed to be more. Maybe they successfully escape with their lives from the pyramid (with the help of Magneto), and then you add some more character development and story before circling back to the REAL final battle. One thing that I would've liked? If in that one moment halfway into the movie, Apocalypse drops the nukes and genocides much of the planet in one fell swoop. There's an actual apocalyptic event, and they have to fight to keep what's left of the world intact.
One big plus: this might be the most violent PG-13 movie I've ever seen. Throats getting cut, Wolverine being a walking slasher movie, people getting crushed, limbs being snapped. As a result, the action really had teeth that you don't see in most superhero movies these days. I'm excited to see the next Wolverine with this new approach.
-
4
-
-
FX gives out a final two-season renewal, with the ten-episode sixth and final season airing in 2018: http://deadline.com/2016/05/the-americans-end-run-2-season-renewal-fx-seasons-5-6-1201762485/
What a wonderful network FX is.
-
1
-
-
On 5/11/2016 at 11:34 AM, Dexter of Suburbia said:
He changed his username to Mr. Lobotomy.
I wonder what every happened to him. Hopefully he got his act together.
-
1
-
-
Pretty much everything you could ask for from the genre. A familiar premise with a unique spin, strong acting, a tight and sharp script, and artful direction all contribute. But it's Saulnier's knack for gut-wrenchingly realistic, authentic violence that really sets it apart. Once things are in motion, there are no rules, archetypes, or beats to follow--just characters frantically (and often unsuccessfully, despite genuinely smart behavior) trying to cope with an impossible situation, where any failure to think ten steps ahead can result in an abrupt, grisly death.
And additionally, it can't be said how refreshing the set-up is. The authenticity of the film extends to its portrayal of a broke band trying to hack it in the punk rock scene, and in addition to some kick-ass music, it lends empathy and depth to the protagonists that is much harder to come by in films with kids-being-hunted premise that have been recycling the same three scenarios for the past thirty years.
-
Who is predicting that? Sounds stupid. Wingard and Barrett's shtick is turning rote genre premises into intelligent, ruthlessly entertaining movies. Not unwanted sequels.
-
3
-
-
My favorite duo in the business (responsible for You're Next and The Guest) are back at it again! And here's a trailer.
-
1
-
-
Since there's no review thread for this, I'll just drop in here to say that it's fucking awesome.
-
1
-
-
-
1 hour ago, Ozymandias said:
I didn't know there was a thread, thanks for the bump.
Just finished the Season 2 Finale, spoilers ahead just in case!
Chuck is quickly becoming one of the most loathsome characters I've seen.
The Chicken Man is back! The 1 word note left on Mike's car was such a Chicken Man move. In Breaking Bad, moments before the Salamanca twins were about to put an axe in Walt's head, the Chicken Man sent them a 1 word message of "POLLOS". And like that move, it was done for the Chicken Man's own selfish reasons and benefit. In Breaking Bad, it was so he could dominate the market with Walt's 99% pure meth. In this, its to keep the cartel from suspecting rivals such as him(especially given his history with Hector) and wanting to be the one that eventually kills or torments Hector.
Prediction for Season 3
1.) Jimmy's entire story in Season 3 will be more or less a chess match between Chuck and Jimmy similar to Walter White and Gustavo Fring in Season 4 of Breaking Bad. Jimmy will ultimately win by going full Saul Goodman by burning Chuck to the ground with the help of Mike in a way that makes the McGill name toxic which leads to Jimmy taking up the name of Saul Goodman.
1. I hadn't made that connection with the note at all, but it does make sense. Who else would make that move? Surely nobody with the cartel, they'd have just captured, tortured, and murdered Mike. Couldn't have been Nacho, because he was the one in Mike's sights the whole time.
2. That all sounds pretty solid to me. Once it was revealed that Jimmy admitting to a felony in order to save his brother's career was going to fuck him in the worst way imaginable, it became all too clear that this was the next phase in his real corruption (which, through two seasons and plenty of tribulations, we haven't seen too much of yet. Yeah, sabotaging his brother's case was a felony crime, but it's hardly advocating murder or openly marketing to career criminals).
3. So how is Jimmy going to get out of the pickle he just made for himself? I initially thought when the scene started that Chuck was playing Jimmy to get him to admit it, but I thought it'd be for his own knowledge and he'd turn on him with an "I knew it" type speech and the door being opened for him to start trying to prove it, but instead he straight up got the smoking gun and didn't even begin to tip Jimmy off that he had it. But that smoking gun is a taped confession of a felony (and enough circumstantial evidence that supports the confession, if being useless on its own), and that doesn't represent a major setback for Jimmy, it represents him being disbarred and going to prison. We know that doesn't happen because this is a prequel, which begs the question, how can he get out of this? They teased the fact that he could have Chuck committed in this episode, and while we didn't get that here, I wouldn't be surprised to see it come to pass after this.
And also, nice call on tarnishing the McGill name. I was having a hard time figuring out what would possibly cause him to outright change his name in addition to all the other things about him that are different in BrBa, and that one makes a lot of sense.
BLAIR WITCH | Sequel to THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT | 9/16/16 | The Blair Witch returns as The Blair "Blair Witch" Witch
in Box Office Discussion
Posted
I actually dug it. It isn't You're Next and it sure as hell isn't The Guest, but as far as found footage films go, I think it holds up better than most. Adam Wingard really directs the hell out of the movie--there's one moment about two-thirds of the way through with this extended, still close-up that was breathtaking. The acting by and large is serviceable if completely bland; Valorie Curry (who I dug in the otherwise terrible The Following) is very good, and I'd go so far as to call the female lead great.
The real issue, it pains me to say, is Simon Barrett's script. It's hard to believe this is the same guy who wrote David Collins, the Peterson family, and Erin. The writing is never bad, it's just... nothing at all, usually. There were moments of self-awareness that I enjoyed but they were few and far between, as they should be in this type of film. But when they aren't there, and you're just watching the characters interact, it's just pretty trite found footage horror set-up. He clearly needs characters he can have fun with.
But all in all I'd call it a good horror film and a serviceable film all-in-all. It's worth watching for Wingard's work.
A caveat that I did not see the first Blair Witch, so I don't have a more original and intelligent version of the same movie to compare it to, which I have to imagine goes a long way.