RedLetterMedia presents: re:View

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
It actually became more relevant in a post 9/11 world.

Only thing that ruins it is the knowledge that Verhoeven and co are lefties that reject what they were satirizing. However I will give them credit for being sly enough about it that they fooled a lot of critics.

I never read the book, and I do understand that the movie wasn't tremendously faithful. But, wasn't Heinlen pretty right wing?
Depends on who you ask. His later work delved a lot into socialist ideals.
 

Floyd1977

Registered User
Depends on who you ask. His later work delved a lot into socialist ideals.
I suppose. For example, I've read most of Crichton's books and he's kind of a political Rorschach.
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Which later books would you say delved into socialist ideals?
It's been a long time (25 years) and I have trouble sorting them in my head. But he started on this kick of family members fucking each other and hippie like communes. I believe Number of the Beast was one of them.
 
It's been a long time (25 years) and I have trouble sorting them in my head. But he started on this kick of family members fucking each other and hippie like communes. I believe Number of the Beast was one of them.
I guess we just see Heinlein totally differently. His political trajectory seemed, at least to me, as more leftist/socialist in his earlier works and more right/libertarian in his middle to later works.
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
I guess we just see Heinlein totally differently. His political trajectory seemed, at least to me, as more leftist/socialist in his earlier works and more right/libertarian in his middle to later works.
Like I said, it's been many, many years.

I just remember his early books were action and adventure and exploration and the like. Later he went all metaphysical and boring and started making "big points" in his books. YAAAAAAAWN.

I'd go back and re-read them, but I have a much harder time reading his books these days. The technology is just so out of date or rediculous that it pulls me out. I understand the foresight of the tech was brilliant for when it was written, but it was much easier to take in the 80s than now.
 

Falldog

Wackbag's Best Conservative
Donator
Next one up is going to be Frank Darabont's The Mist.
 

MTJonny

Well-Known Member
Donator
Fucking love this movie.
Same here, was always suprised so few people have seen it. On a side note, Mrs. Carmody has to be be near the top of the most hatable characters ever list.
 

ruckstande

Posts mostly from the shitter.
I don't know many horror movies that truly left you feeling so miserable. A truly horrific ending.
 

LiddyRules

The 9/11 Moon Landings Were An Outside Job
Didn't realize this was 2007 either. Damn good year for movies.
 

LiddyRules

The 9/11 Moon Landings Were An Outside Job
Watching the re:View, I think the thing about The Mist that never really connected for me was the bad effects. It's strange how bad CGI throws me off more than bad practical effects from a 1950s movie. Probably because there's a charm to bad practical effects whereas bad CGI effects just look cheap. I will try the B/W version if it's on Netflix.

I also think re:View is a great idea because they haven't done a HitB in awhile, and I like that in order to produce content they don't have to force themselves to do something on Ghost in the Shell or Fate and the Furious or another new movie; movies they don't feel strongly enough about in either direction to warrant a half hour video. Instead, they can talk about something that interests them and gets me to want to re-watch an older movie.
 
Watching the re:View, I think the thing about The Mist that never really connected for me was the bad effects. It's strange how bad CGI throws me off more than bad practical effects from a 1950s movie. Probably because there's a charm to bad practical effects whereas bad CGI effects just look cheap. I will try the B/W version if it's on Netflix.

I also think re:View is a great idea because they haven't done a HitB in awhile, and I like that in order to produce content they don't have to force themselves to do something on Ghost in the Shell or Fate and the Furious or another new movie; movies they don't feel strongly enough about in either direction to warrant a half hour video. Instead, they can talk about something that interests them and gets me to want to re-watch an older movie.
The version that I saw and added to my que was the Bluray one. The DVD version is also in color.
 

Floyd1977

Registered User
Watching the re:View, I think the thing about The Mist that never really connected for me was the bad effects. It's strange how bad CGI throws me off more than bad practical effects from a 1950s movie. Probably because there's a charm to bad practical effects whereas bad CGI effects just look cheap. I will try the B/W version if it's on Netflix.

I also think re:View is a great idea because they haven't done a HitB in awhile, and I like that in order to produce content they don't have to force themselves to do something on Ghost in the Shell or Fate and the Furious or another new movie; movies they don't feel strongly enough about in either direction to warrant a half hour video. Instead, they can talk about something that interests them and gets me to want to re-watch an older movie.
The B/W helps in that regard.

The Mist is still the last horror movie I've seen that completly blew me away.
 

Pigdango

Silence, you mortal Fuck!
Donator
Didn't realize this was 2007 either. Damn good year for movies.
Let's take a look at 2007. I assume it makes your list because of The Mist, Zodiac, No Country for Old Men, and There Will Be Blood. That's 2 Oscar Nominees, 1 that certainly could have been, and a Stephen King movie, which seems silly to be included but I haven't seen it so maybe it's good. I'll add AVPR, to that list, but that's still only 5 movies. The balance of the Best Picture category is a big pile of crud in Juno, Atonement, and Michael Clayton, and when you look at the top Box Office films, you really have to struggle to find any good ones. 300 is probably the best of the "hit" movies of that year.

I see that once I get past the top 100 a few more movies pop up like Once, Hot Fuzz, Gone Baby Gone, The Assassination of Jesse James, and Death at a Funeral. That's a pretty sizable list of films that didn't find an audience in theaters but have become quite popular in the years since.

It's just weird because a lot of the hit movies read like an Encyclopedia of HitW.

Anyway, I'm just wondering what makes a good year for movies? Certainly 2007 has a number of smaller films that have held up for a decade, but as far as blockbusters go...yeesh. I know Blockbusters aren't everything, (or anything to you), but even if you go to 2008 you have Iron Man and The Dark Knight anchoring the year. Of course, the Oscar noms that year are...jesus, and just skimming the list I'm not seeing a whole lot there. So maybe you can't have it both ways? Maybe the smaller films find an audience because of the void left by the bigger movies?
 

LiddyRules

The 9/11 Moon Landings Were An Outside Job
Let's take a look at 2007. I assume it makes your list because of The Mist, Zodiac, No Country for Old Men, and There Will Be Blood. That's 2 Oscar Nominees, 1 that certainly could have been, and a Stephen King movie, which seems silly to be included but I haven't seen it so maybe it's good. I'll add AVPR, to that list, but that's still only 5 movies. The balance of the Best Picture category is a big pile of crud in Juno, Atonement, and Michael Clayton, and when you look at the top Box Office films, you really have to struggle to find any good ones. 300 is probably the best of the "hit" movies of that year.

I see that once I get past the top 100 a few more movies pop up like Once, Hot Fuzz, Gone Baby Gone, The Assassination of Jesse James, and Death at a Funeral. That's a pretty sizable list of films that didn't find an audience in theaters but have become quite popular in the years since.

It's just weird because a lot of the hit movies read like an Encyclopedia of HitW.

Anyway, I'm just wondering what makes a good year for movies? Certainly 2007 has a number of smaller films that have held up for a decade, but as far as blockbusters go...yeesh. I know Blockbusters aren't everything, (or anything to you), but even if you go to 2008 you have Iron Man and The Dark Knight anchoring the year. Of course, the Oscar noms that year are...jesus, and just skimming the list I'm not seeing a whole lot there. So maybe you can't have it both ways? Maybe the smaller films find an audience because of the void left by the bigger movies?
Sunshine was also 2007. Superbad. Eastern Promises. Stardust. Diving Bell and the Butterfly. Darjeeling Limited. Walk Hard. Grindhouse?

As was Spidey 3.
 
Let's take a look at 2007. I assume it makes your list because of The Mist, Zodiac, No Country for Old Men, and There Will Be Blood. That's 2 Oscar Nominees, 1 that certainly could have been, and a Stephen King movie, which seems silly to be included but I haven't seen it so maybe it's good. I'll add AVPR, to that list, but that's still only 5 movies. The balance of the Best Picture category is a big pile of crud in Juno, Atonement, and Michael Clayton, and when you look at the top Box Office films, you really have to struggle to find any good ones. 300 is probably the best of the "hit" movies of that year.

I see that once I get past the top 100 a few more movies pop up like Once, Hot Fuzz, Gone Baby Gone, The Assassination of Jesse James, and Death at a Funeral. That's a pretty sizable list of films that didn't find an audience in theaters but have become quite popular in the years since.

It's just weird because a lot of the hit movies read like an Encyclopedia of HitW.

Anyway, I'm just wondering what makes a good year for movies? Certainly 2007 has a number of smaller films that have held up for a decade, but as far as blockbusters go...yeesh. I know Blockbusters aren't everything, (or anything to you), but even if you go to 2008 you have Iron Man and The Dark Knight anchoring the year. Of course, the Oscar noms that year are...jesus, and just skimming the list I'm not seeing a whole lot there. So maybe you can't have it both ways? Maybe the smaller films find an audience because of the void left by the bigger movies?
I think there are varying factors that determine what makes a good year for movies. They would include:

1. The year's overall box office performance.
2. Quality of the movies themselves.
3. Do a majority of the films still hold up?

I understand the importance of movies making money. But since I'm not a shareholder and none of that money goes into my pockets, I would probably put less emphasis on that than I would the other two.

I would also willing to do a 60/40 split. Meaning I would judge the year on the strength of the blockbusters. If that makes sense.
 
Top