IWantCandy71

Honestly, lazy to me these days is having another superhero movie out. I thought at least this one tried to be a little bit different ?(but I phrase that with a question mark because I think in trying to be different, the differences they came up with frustrated me). I barely remembered the trailer honestly, and my friends and I just wanted something cute to see. I looked for reviews and saw the spoiler and I knew before I watched, what the "twist" would be. It didn't ruin it for me. The down sides to the movie for me ? It felt longer than it actually was, it dragged in the last twenty minutes. Another thing- I'm tired of every movie feeling like they have to include every underrepresented "class" of people and make a "statement". That's so ridiculous and annoying. STOP it. It's not your job to be political, Hollywood. Your job is to make a good movie, or at least, an entertaining one, for my ten bucks. It wasn't all that funny, but I think I'd classify it as more "dramedy" than rom com. The lead female wasn't really likeable until the last half hour/forty five minutes. Too selfish for me without enough reason. The positives: The movie was cute and quirky, otherwise. I like that the "Romance" is more about a woman learning to love herself, her life, the people in her life, and the world around her. The cast, for the most part, had nice chemistry. I wouldn't watch it again, though. I do think Tom Webster was precious, and too good for this world. But why has Emma Thompson taken to annoying me so ? I am not sure what it is, I wish I knew. It's worth a watch if you are just in the mood for a Christmas movie, but otherwise I'd say wait till Redbox.

I've seen a lot of comments that Renee shouldn't have been Judy because she didn't sound like her and didn't look like her. When has anyone ever sounded like or looked like anyone but themselves without tons of makeup and hairpieces, etc ? LOL I guess for me it' s just a silly reason to knock RZ's performance or the movie itself. The point it, did RZ do justice to Judy as a person ? Was it a respectful, layered, loving performance ? Yes and yes, and that should be all that matters. I normally will rebel against anyone telling me someone was so great that they deserve a Oscar, with two months still left in the year for performances to judge. But I do think this is one exception. She was that good, and deserves at least one win for this. OTOH, I also think any nom or win will be just as much about paying respect and tribute to JG as it is the actress RZ.

I'm surprised about some people being surprised over RZ's singing. Chicago/Roxie, anyone ? Seventeen years ago (yikes) but she really belted it out. The movie falls under the same pitfall as most biopics. It does the "this happened, then this happened...." type of storytelling, rather than taking the events and making a story out of them. Overall, the movie was just average to fairly good at times. Strong performances from Rufus Sewell and the other supporting cast. I could watch RS read a pamphlet about organizing a sock drawer and I would be riveted. I wanted more of Sid and Judy, I thought the two actors had great chemistry. Take note, Hollywood. RZ completely inhabited JG. So much so, that she disappeared and I only saw JG. Right down to that weird spacey look in her eyes (don't know if it was being high or drunk IRL that caused it or what) that JG would get a lot of times when she sang. Her mannerisms, everything. It was spooky at times. I did not expect to do the ugly cry at the end. Honestly, the last twenty minutes of the movie-if you didn't at least tear up or feel your heart break for her, ah well. Maybe I'm just overly sensitive, but if I am, so was everyone else in the theater. The cake scene, as someone who has suffered off and on all her life with body image issues and eating disorders, my heart was crushed. I was so happy when she took a bite. Isn't that sad ? I had to bite down on my bottom lip to keep from sobbing when she started talking about what "Somewhere over the Rainbow" was about. When she started singing it, I just gave up and let the tears flow. Such emotion ! RZ really "got" it, and that made all the difference. What happened during the song, I have heard, actually happened during her last performance, but the rumor is, the audience reaction IRL was vastly different than what happened in the movie. I think the director just wanted to end a tragic story on a slightly upbeat note, but then the final moments of reminding the audience she died just several months later at the age of 47...you could have heard a pin drop in the theater and no one moved during the credits. I could hear other people crying as well. Best female performance in a movie I've seen in at least the last five years, if not the last decade. The only other movie actress who has moved me like that in recent memory has been Sally Hawkins. RZ totally deserves best actress awards at both the Oscars and Golden Globes.

I liked Bryce in Lady in the Water. I think that role, her Black Mirror role (which may be my favorite) and her role in The Help are all very different people. That shows me she has some range, which TBH, I can't say so readily about Jessica. I see Jessica in interviews and she seems so funny and lighthearted. I don't think she's had a role yet, that really uses that. It's a shame. So many of her roles are so serious and she's chewing the scenery and I get turned off. She needs a good comedy, where being OTT is more accepted if you are making people laugh.

I don't either. I think ever since "The Help", she tries too hard. I would even go so far as to say most of her performances overall since then have been painful to watch. I think the generic phrase is "over the top", and it fits well enough, so I'll go with that. Perhaps another UO? I think Bryce Dallas Howard is a far better actress from "The Help", and deserves the attention JC has gotten. I know most people would see it as her riding her father's coat tails, but I think she's a decent enough actress. Another UO(maybe?) I liked Martin Scorsese's comment about Marvel movies. I know what he meant (and I think most people who aren't fanatics on either side of the fence also realize what he meant). And...he's not wrong. They are movies, but they are not "cinema"(meaning they aren't deep, and they aren't "art"). But then, much of Hollywood is not "cinema" by those standards, and hasn't been in a long time. I think the new Judy Garland biopic may be "cinema", I am looking forward to seeing it.

Agreed. Fred Rogers deserved to at least be portrayed by an actor who does more than just coast on his name and past successes. I haven't seen Tom Hanks try hard in well over a decade.

Honestly, what I don't "get" is the casting of TH as Mr. Rogers It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. An unknown should have been chosen. Mr. Rogers was wholesome. True enough, Tom Hanks isn't a public "bad boy", and I like his wife Rita. They seem to have a solid marriage, and that's no small accomplishment (especially after what, 30 years together ?) I think there is supposed to be some sort of parallel between the two men that the studio was trying to hint at. I just don't see that at all, even before reading his comments. I don't see any similarities in terms of personality, not a bit. I don't think both of them being public "nice guys" counts as a comparison.

Yes, agreed. Those two had fabulous chemistry ! Even though I understood why she rejected him (and knew it would happen, of course), I was like, "Jo, you dumb. "

I'm in the minority because I never thought Ledger's Joker was all that great. Extremely overrated. Cillian Murphy's Scarecrow was creepier to me.

I feel this way anytime a Marvel movie comes out. I will never, ever get the hype. Certain characters, yes. I get the hype over some individual characters. But the movies as a whole do not warrant dozens, much less hundreds or thousands, of replies in threads. They just aren't that deep and you can pretty much wash, rinse, repeat all the scripts. I won't be watching Joker-it just isn't my thing. But I am not going to begrudge DC, or JP, the attention. Disclaimer that it really isn't just Marvel. I'm burned out on the whole superhero thing and have been for some time. I enjoyed Shazam and Glass this year (did not enjoy Captain Marvel and sadly, did not enjoy Dark Phoenix). But I'm ready for Hollywood to focus on something other than people in makeup, tights, and capes. Though I still do love Loki and will likely watch his TV show. "Just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in". I still say Hollywood needs a really good mystery/suspense thriller where the twists can actually surprise us. We haven't had one of those in a while.

I don't know if the trailer feels "modern" to me. Yes, it's heavy on the girl power-but that's because of the nature of the story. It feels like the 94 version, to me, in terms of tone. I loved the novel as a little girl, and I love most versions put to film. I will likely be seeing this in the theater. No, we don't need another version. But we don't need yet another Marvel/Avengers movie, and we didn't need the last four or five, and yet we got them, because they are like a cancer that won't die. I'd rather plunk down the money for a movie like this a dozen times over. At least I love most of the characters already-except Amy. I always wanted Amy to die instead of Beth. I don't think the actor is too young for Laurie. I think SR is too old for Jo, though. As was Winona Ryder, who was still about two years younger than SR when she played the role. I like SR a lot-but Jo is FIFTEEN years old at the start. Why can't Hollywood find a eighteen/nineteen year old-easy enough to pass her off as a younger teen, and to add a little makeup to age her to her early twenties (I think Jo is 23-ish at the end). A 26 year old playing 15 ? Annoying and it takes you out of the moment a little, I think. I don't think LMA put Amy with Laurie out of spite. It's my understanding that she was told by the publisher that she had to marry all the girls off. Her original desire was always to keep Jo single-so she wasn't ever going to marry Laurie and Jo. It wasn't until I guess her publisher forced her to, that she married Jo off to the professor at the end. I too liked Jo and Laurie, but I think they are the kind of people better off as friends because they are too alike. They don't balance each other-his worse faults are her worse faults, etc. I really don't like Amy-and I hated that Laurie married her-but they are at least an example of two people who compliment each other's personalities.

I signed up for Master Class and have watched a few of Neil Gaiman's creative writing lessons. I had heard of him and never read him, so I bought "Fragile Things", a collection of his short stories. I am about halfway through the book now. Can I just say, I don't think I like him. He's considered a "fantasy" writer, and that's not really my thing, but I don't think that's why. I think most of the stories I've read are confusing and without much point, and sadly-I find the majority of them to be empty and soulless. I don't know why. It's just that when I read, I read to feel something, and maybe to think about what I've read-and most of these stories are not doing that for me. But wait. The very first story in the book, I just read yesterday, because I skip around like that. And I LOVED IT. The publisher obviously felt it was one of the best, giving it that place of honor. It is called "A Study in Emerald". Yes, it's a play on "A Study in Scarlet". It is a blend of Sherlock pastiche, fantasy, and a blend of horror (some characters H.P. Lovecraft created are a crucial part of the story). It has also been done as a graphic novel by Dark Horse comics and would make an awesome movie or tv show. I think Dark Horse thinks so as well, they first published it in 2006 and then re-released it last year. I won't spoiler everything, but I will spoiler one main point that is I guess, the "twist ending:" I can't recommend the entire book of short stories, but this story is a must read if you like Sherlock Holmes or fantasy type stories. It can be read for free online at various places, and even earned a mention in TV Tropes under literature. One other big spoiler, one that both freaked me out and made me smile : No Mycroft Holmes, though. BOO. I would so watch this as a movie, in a heartbeat.

No idea if anyone here who enjoys the show, is a fan of the Dark Horse Comic line that this show originated from. Or, as a fan of the show, if you've read the Umbrella Academy graphic novel. If you are a fan, I would recommend trying to seek out "A Study in Emerald", also a Dark Horse graphic novel, and one that would make an awesome limited run series of it's own on Netflix. If you are familiar with Sherlock Holmes, you'll know right off the title is a play on "A Study in Scarlet". However, the graphic novel is based on a short story originally written by Neil Gaiman. It isn't what you think it's going to be at all. I won't spoiler here, but I am going to post about it in the books thread. Of course, if you are intrigued and want to be spoiled, there is an accurate Wikipedia article on the short story. I was so impressed by the story, I am probably going to buy the graphic novel from Dark Horse. This from someone who isn't a horror/H.P Lovecraft fan at all.

Well, it's GH, so it won't make sense. I would think you'd speak with the accent and cadence of the person your brain thinks you are. But Drew and Franco don't have markedly different ways of talking. I don't think you detect much difference in speech alone. Unless one has a trademark phrase the other never uses or something like that.

So he quit ? That's awesome lol. He's better off.

So they fired Billy Miller ? I called that when I heard Burton was coming back. I don't even care that much about BM's acting, but he beats rings around SBu's resting constipated face. I haven't watched in about two years except for the episode where Oscar died. But that by itself, more than enough evidence that they don't care about talent when choosing who goes or stays. That ain't nothing new.

I'm sure this is an unpopular opinion because I think Sam is fairly well liked online: I group her right in with Jason, Carly and Sonny. I do not separate them, because she's proven, both by what we know of her past before coming to town, and her behavior since coming, that she's just as bad as them in her own way. She conned men out of their money, and at least two of them committed suicide because of this, yes ? She routinely brushes over the fact that Jason and Sonny are scum and doesn't see anything wrong with their lifestyles. Until she does see it, and then she plays victim. I don't really like her, and don't see her as one bit more moral than any of the other three. I think she's totally the type of character who would justify anything she does, or anything whoever she likes, does. I don't think she has much of a moral compass, if at all. She fits right in with them. And TBH-I see her mother and Kristina the same way. So maybe it's a Cassadine thing ? Eh. Speaking of a Cassadine thing, I was bored, so I watched the clip up above. It was either that, or go outside in the 110 degree heat and mow my lawn. I thought the clip would be less painful-I was wrong. The worst part of that ? None of those actors have chemistry with each other. At least Michelle Stafford's Nina had chemistry with Leisl and Valentine. There's nothing worse than a soap family whose actors don't click. That's even worse than a couple that doesn't click, IMO, because couples never last on these shows anyway, but you're generally kind of stuck with the family they put you in. Until you find out you were switched at birth or you were hatched in a factory or whatever they are doing these days. That scene made me miss the old school Qs, SO badly. But as someone else said, Leisl's "body" comment was funny. That's something.

It deserved a lot more attention and to also make a lot more money. We however live in a movie going universe where the name Marvel makes tons of money even when their movies are for the most part….not good, in most ways that matter. So, IDK. I'm okay with the Shazam movies always being a "B" franchise as long as the movies themselves remain entertaining. I think you absolutely cannot judge the quality of a movie by how much money it makes. And you definitely cannot judge a movie by how much hype it gets. I feel like those that use the "well this/that moviemade a billion dollars" argument, need to be patted on the head and sent to bed without supper until they learn what true quality is.

Less Than Perfect. Sitcom with Sara Rue, Eric Roberts, Patrick Warburton, Zachary Levi, Andrea Parker, Sheri Shepard, Andy Dick and Will Sasso. Early 2000's. It got shuffled around by ABC, and the last half of the last season didn't even air on ABC-it aired three years later on Lifetime. IDK why it got jerked around the way it did, but it was actually pretty funny. Nothing overly original, although having a plus size lead was unusual at the time. I remember watching the first season and loving it, and it's one show that actually remained entertaining from beginning to end. Some of the characterizations for the supporting characters was all over the place by the end, but still. It remained watchable from start to finish. I think most of the episodes are on You Tube or Amazon, but you may have to search them out.

I actually watched Rip Torn's old Columbo episode, "Death Hits the Jackpot", last night before I even knew he had died. How strange is that ? It's one of my favorites (I have the complete box set of Columbo. I am a mystery nerd, and I am not ashamed). If any of you have never seen it, search it out. It's one of the most fun episodes out of that era (early nineties). Another favorite performance of Rip's-the Jeff Daniels/Michael Richards "Trial and Error" movie. I enjoyed that one, but it's been a long time since I've seen it.

I liked it as well, I've paid money this year to see movies in theaters that had a bigger budget, but weren't half as good. I agree I wouldn't mind seeing a series of movies with the characters. I could do without some of the language. I mean I get that it's Adam Sandler, but if the story is fine without it, FTLOG leave it out. That annoyed me. I also thought they could have done more in terms of characterizations. I sort of like the fact that they are apparently a childless couple-because almost all of these types of movies introduce kids at some point, for no other reason than to show the parents having to rescue the kids or vice versa. Seeing two adults not talking about their kids or about having kids was refreshing. I didn't know Charlize Theron was involved with this, she is credited as being an executive producer ? Wikipedia says she was originally set to star back in 2013, I guess it was supposed to be a theatrical release at one point ? It was good seeing Gemma Arterton, Terence Stamp and Luke Evans(who really should be in more stuff). I think it could have been funnier-but the scene with the Maharajah and Grace in the hotel room was a highlight. Grace calling out her own name and telling herself how gorgeous she is, to get in the mood-IDK if I've ever seen anything quite like that. The Orient Express ending was also unexpected and fun. They did a good job planting some red herrings. I thought the fact that the one eyed general being the only one who could see well enough in the dark to know that the father was being stabbed, was too ridiculous not to be suspicious. I thought it was possible his character could have been the one Grace was looking at as she left. One big mess up, though. No way are you going to stab someone that violently and not get blood on you, and I don't recall anyone getting blood on them except the general, and that was only when he pulled out the blade, right ?

I do, too ! 🙂 I will watch this eventually, it looks like a rainy, lazy day watch, but I'll get to it.

GOSH I loved this show back in the day. I didn't even know they did new ones. I may have to check it out.

I've never read any of the comics, but I've heard that as well. This movie definitely puts Magneto and Charles on more equal footing, morally-which is something I've always suspected. I never liked how IM's version was always portrayed (IMO anyway) as a bit of an unhinged nut, and PS's Charles as some kind of saint. Even without knowing much about the histories, it felt like manipulation, when to me, in most situations, I actually agreed with Erik's POV and attitude. Not the mindless killing and hatred-but even that, I understood, even if I didn't agree with it. I think Charles, just from what I've seen, has a bit of a God complex.

So, I've watched all four movies based on Miklos Laszlo's play "The Parfumerie". That would be "The Shop Around the Corner", "The Good Old Summertime", "You've Got Mail", and I've seen the taped Broadway version "She Loves Me", with Zachary Levi and Laura Benanti. I think it might be an unpopular opinion to say I liked them in the following order: "She Loves Me" "You've Got Mail" "The Shop Around the Corner" And lastly...."The Good Old Summertime". It's a big deal for me, because "She Loves Me" is a musical, and I normally dislike musicals unless the story is cute, the acting is on point, and there is enough story to make up for the absurdity of random people breaking into song. That was true with "SLM", and to be honest...I really fell in love with it. I've tried finding the original play online for free and can't, but I'd love to compare to see how Hollywood and Broadway changed it. I liked "Summertime" the least, because it was the kind of musical that I find annoying. I felt it was just a vehicle for Judy Garland to sing in, and she had a lovely voice...but she didn't have enough charm in this to hold it together by herself. I didn't feel JG and VJ had any chemistry. A truly unpopular opinion maybe, but I didn't feel Jimmy Stewart and Margaret Sullavan were all that sparkly together either, in "The Shop Around the Corner". I love Jimmy Stewart because he's Jimmy Stewart, but.....(another UO)...I think he's either typecast, or miscast, here...I'm honestly not sure which ? I just didn't connect with him in this. And since I didn't connect with him, I didn't connect with them as a couple, either...which is the whole point, really. It kind of ruins the movie if you can't ardently root for them to be together. "You've Got Mail". Hmm. I will say that there are parts I'd cut out. I think the story should stay "timeless", in a sense, and "YGM" was a little too modern for me here. I think TH and MR are charming though, and they have such a sweet chemistry that you can't help but root for them. Again, that's the point, isn't it ? Still though, I feel ZL and LB had the best chemistry, and something about "SLM" is just so touching and sweet. Not just the romance, but the fact that every character has a voice. It is really the only one of the four versions where the side characters have a real POV and vital scenes where the two main leads are not even present. All this, just to say...UO that the 2016 "SLM" Broadway production is better than the three versions before it(although it was written and performed technically, for the first time, before "YGM"). I think if you like that kind of story, search out the Broadway version on Broadway HD if you have to, and decide for yourself. IMO it beats them all in terms of chemistry and charm and sweetness. ETA that "SLM" has Peter Bartlett as the waiter in the restaurant in the pivotal scene where Georg sees Amalia waiting for him. That scene is one of the funniest bits I've ever seen in my life, and while everyone involved was awesome in it, PB puts it right over the top into classic territory (and I'm pretty sure at one point ZL actually had to stop himself from laughing at him). "Don't call him, he'll come back". So much FUN.