San Francisco, 8:40 AM
Mon Dec 7
16 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz |
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders |
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner |
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis |
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan |
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier |
Ed Grabianowski |
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan |
Lauren Davis |
Chris Hsiang |
Lynn Peril |
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins |
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox |
Interns:
Tim Barribeau |
Julia Carusillo |
Alex Eichler |
Cyriaque Lamar |
Caitlin Petrakovitz |
Mary Ratliff |
Josh Snyder |
This is why i am skeptical about most Marvel movies. The names they've thrown out for Captain America (Brad Pitt! Leo DiCaprio! Will Smith!) have all been more of a wish list then actual candidates. (It isn't even clear that big names make the movie all that great, either; who would have considered Bale a contender for Batman before the first Nolan movie)?
Marvel is like the kid who used to brag about having all the cool Star Wars toys but who, when you came to visit, would say "oh, I let a friend borrow them." #thor
@Wookie1972: I knew that guy! He also had the ultra rare never before seen toy version of CYBERTRON that turned into a really big robot, but it was somehow never allowed to be brought out and played with.. hmmmmmm? #thor
I could have sworn they had already casted Thor with the guy that played Kirk's father...was that just a rumor too, or am I thinking of something else? #thor
not sure what kind of kibbutz miss newitz grew up on, but she does seem to have the opposite reaction to things scifi fantasy people generally like, or simply is lacking in geek cred/history. not that that's a bad thing. it just seems like her articles are here with the sole purpose of pissing off genre fans. not including well known giant robots in her informal giant robot poll seemed to lack research of any kind. the list included robots my mom would probably name. not supposed uber geeks.
still, at the time this movie was released, it was seen as a semi-last stand for rourke, and a bad career move for a certain huxtable (deemed by bill cosby). it was pretty well liked for it's creepy shock art house vibe that carried through the "independent" film period up till around the crying game. didn't make that much money. but i'd like to think it paved the way for twin peaks, and arty early 90's "independents"
@FrellingDominar: I saw this movie when it came out, was a die-hard horror fan at the time (still am) and I think it's cheesy as hell. Those voodoo scenes? Give me a break.
I don't consider "cred" to mean "having the same opinions as everybody else." And I believe most fans of scifi would agree - simply by virtue of being fans of this genre, we have already accepted that our opinions don't exactly match those of the people around us.
I was going to strenuously defend this great film-with-a-poor-ending, but i see the kind Lassus and gods-n-clods have already fiiled the breach (and/or breech). I am with you chaps. I think the first half of Angel Heart is one of the best films out there.
@UdoCulleo: I agree that it had cool elements, but the over-the-top devil performance by De Niro definitely pushed it into campy territory. Still it's great to see Rourke in fine form here - he could act even before The Wrestler.
@Andy Hunt: See, I didn't want to throw out that *SPOILER!1!**! (that the glow eyed little baby sucks with the 1987 graphics... and there's a very small window in the script, that allows for the whole "devil/Johnny" relationship to be completely made up, like nothing ever happened, and there's no supernatural involved).
@gods-n-clods: Now, see, Andy Hunt's comment didn't reveal much of anything, other than the fact that somewhere in the movie there's a pair of badly done spooky eyes. Could have been anything.
Your response to that, however, put it all out there. Spoilers indeed. Guess I won't be needing to see this one now...
Booooooo! to calling this movie bad. It was actually a pretty twisty stylish piece in 1987, decent noir with good pacing and really nice art direction.
I know it doesn't make it good, but I remember specifically going to see it by myself when it came out, then dragging all my high school friends with me to see it the very next day.
You want to pick on 1987, there's all kinds of Witchboard, Project X, and *batteries not included to mine for suck.
@Lassus: Also, I would say the violence of the sex isn't really so much a stereotype as a foreshadowing of the reveal at the end. It isn't much of a "all women are submissive and want to be hurt" stereotype based on that scene.
(Despite my defense of the film, the orgy bit in here is really ludicrous. Everything else works, though.)
10/20/09
........
*tumbleweeds*
........
*ahem #thor
10/21/09
Yeah, this is a tough room. #thor
10/20/09
10/20/09
Marvel is like the kid who used to brag about having all the cool Star Wars toys but who, when you came to visit, would say "oh, I let a friend borrow them." #thor
10/20/09
10/21/09
What I always loved is that it was super-ultra-precious and the coolest thing ever, and yet the guy seemed to let anybody BUT YOU borrow it. #thor
10/20/09
10/20/09
Basically they're quashing their own unsubstantiated rumor.
06/27/09
still, at the time this movie was released, it was seen as a semi-last stand for rourke, and a bad career move for a certain huxtable (deemed by bill cosby). it was pretty well liked for it's creepy shock art house vibe that carried through the "independent" film period up till around the crying game. didn't make that much money. but i'd like to think it paved the way for twin peaks, and arty early 90's "independents"
06/27/09
I don't consider "cred" to mean "having the same opinions as everybody else." And I believe most fans of scifi would agree - simply by virtue of being fans of this genre, we have already accepted that our opinions don't exactly match those of the people around us.
06/27/09
06/27/09
06/27/09
06/27/09
06/27/09
06/27/09
06/27/09
A damn fine film that gets -ruined- in the last 30 seconds. Who's with me?
06/27/09
06/27/09
/rant
06/28/09
Your response to that, however, put it all out there. Spoilers indeed. Guess I won't be needing to see this one now...
06/26/09
I know it doesn't make it good, but I remember specifically going to see it by myself when it came out, then dragging all my high school friends with me to see it the very next day.
You want to pick on 1987, there's all kinds of Witchboard, Project X, and *batteries not included to mine for suck.
06/26/09
(Despite my defense of the film, the orgy bit in here is really ludicrous. Everything else works, though.)
06/27/09