What are you watching & why? (splain)

Blues said:
Jonathan-Banks-Mike-QA-1200x707.jpg


"Great how? Don't make me come over there and give you both a smack."
Click to expand...
This is not going to go down how you're thinking...
 
jus_gus said:
I’m going to go back to watching it also. I love the old cop character, he cracks me up.
Click to expand...
First time I remember seeing Jonathan Banks was 40 years ago in a small part in "48 Hrs" (he gets killed early) and a much bigger part a couple of years later in "Beverly Hills Cop." He was memorable even in smaller parts. I think he is a hell of an actor and has had quite a career for someone who was never a top lead or big star. "Breaking Bad" and "Better Call Saul" were both filled with guys like him - really top notch actors who were not necessarily "stars."

Lorien said:
watched the last episode of season 5 last night. Now we wait:(
Click to expand...
What is making you wait? Is it delayed in Canada?
 
Box_Opener said:
On a side note, anyone here seen the new Cats? It is the most accidentally horrific anything I have ever seen and I own a copy of Salo. It’s just impossible to tell what tone it’s trying to accomplish. Is it ironic? Is it serious? Lighthearted? Are we watching the apocalypse? It’s so disturbing.
Click to expand...

What was the question?

I just finished watching both film versions of "Cats" (1998 and 2019) and they BOTH leave something to be desired.

The production quality of the 1998 film is VERY weak both in terms of audio and visual quality/effects but it is supposed to be an accurate representation of the 1981 theatrical production, which reminded me of Gilbert & Sullivan in terms of the rhyming quality of the lyrics and their pacing, which I liked.

Because of the poor audio, I often could not make out what the actors were saying (not just singing) and I had to do a bit of research to understand what was going on and who the characters were, which was not adequately explained during the play.

Although you know that the actors are human beings pretending to "be" cats, as with any theater production, you have to suspend disbelief and just go w/the theme of the production, which I found fairly easy to do while watching the 1998 film.

The 2019 version was a different matter.

The production value of the 2019 film is cutting edge, everything has HD clarity both in audio and visual effects that the 21st C has to offer technically but these things often made the film look cartoonish and better suited to an animated movie (which was at one point apparently planned).

While the intention was to make the actors look as much like "real" cats as possible, I found certain aspets of the CGI used to attempt to achieve this effect VERY distracting -- particularly the way the cats' tails and ears moved about, often w/no any apparent connection w/the actors body movements.

Also the set design decision to ENLARGE the stage 2-3x human scale to make the people "look" like the size of cats relative to normal structures and furnishings often seemed WAY out of proportion and was likewise distracting and off putting.

The shooting of MASS dance scenes involving 20 or more dancers at a time was just too chaotic to watch and the use of ENLARGED set designs while shooting such scenes just made the dancers look like ants who were hardly distinguishable.

The better scenes were those that focused on just 1-2 dancers in normal scale, particularly when they focused on Francesca Hayward (the ballerina who played Victoria, the White Car) who dances/moves elegantly.

Although it is a bit of a mess, there were at least 3 very good moments in the film that are worth watching and that are far better than the comparable performances in the 1998 film:

1) Ian McKellen's "singing" performance of "Gus: The Theater Cat" was charming and has generally gone unmentioned in the reviews of the film.
2) Taylor Swift's performance of the song "McCavity" excellent (in a Las Vegas way) and has been widely praised by critics.
3) Jennifer Houston's final performance of "Memory" was also excellent and reminicent of her singing performances in "Dreamgirls."

If you want to watch them, there are video clips of these performances available online.

Lastly, I found it amusing that they used a chandelier attached to a balloon so that Grizabella (Hudson) could assend to the Heaviside Layer (aka "heaven) where she could be "reborn." All I could think about when I saw the chandelier was the opening scene in Phantom and wonder if it wasn't going to crash.

LOL! ;)

So, which verison did I prefer?

Overall, apart from the 3 performances in the 2019 film mentioned above, I'd say I preferred the 1998 film because it as close to the theatrical production as possible and wasn't made ludicrious w/the excessive use of CGI and stage setting oddities.
 
Last edited:
Blues said:
I'm gonna miss Kim. I like bad girls.
Click to expand...
Do you know something that we don't know?

As a related note, I was thinking about "Breaking Bad" and "Better Call Saul" and how they could be compared. In "Breaking Bad" we saw one initially seemingly decent dude "break bad" and eventually turn into a murderous villain pretty much all on his own. In "Better Call Saul" it appears we are seeing an underhanded and dishonest dude corrupt one initially seemingly decent woman and turn her into a vile villain, by virtue of his terrible influence. I think it's going to be fascinating to watch Jimmy/Saul realize that he no longer recognizes the monster he has created.
 
The Amazing Virginian said:
Do you know something that we don't know?

As a related note, I was thinking about "Breaking Bad" and "Better Call Saul" and how they could be compared. In "Breaking Bad" we saw one initially seemingly decent dude "break bad" and eventually turn into a murderous villain pretty much all on his own. In "Better Call Saul" it appears we are seeing an underhanded and dishonest dude corrupt one initially seemingly decent woman and turn her into a vile villain, by virtue of his terrible influence. I think it's going to be fascinating to watch Jimmy/Saul realize that he no longer recognizes the monster he has created.
Click to expand...
No, not at all and I'd never spoil it for anyone if I did.

I just mean that I've always enjoyed her enthusiasm and gusto for living on the edge. (I have some of the same failings attributes.)

Fortunately, my wife gets it. Well, she's a Sicilian girl from Brooklyn. So, there's that...
 
CHNeal said:
A crew digging up a water main break under my loading dock…View attachment 1799596
Click to expand...
I dunno but sometimes I think maybe there is something a little whack with society when dudes and dudettes are making tens of millions for acting, singing, and playing ball - which are things a lot of folks would just do for fun - while the dudes who have to deal with sloppy messes like this all day are prolly lucky to hit six figures.
 
The Amazing Virginian said:
I dunno but sometimes I think maybe there is something a little whack with society when dudes and dudettes are making tens of millions for acting, singing, and playing ball - which are things a lot of folks would just do for fun - while the dudes who have to deal with sloppy messes like this all day are prolly lucky to hit six figures.
Click to expand...
...and folks responsible for educating and shaping young minds make a fraction of that...

Then again, the circus was always about distraction 🤔
 
Just watched a mini-series called "North Water" that was being shown for free on my BBC TV cable channel that I found very entertaining. It aired in 5 episodes over 3 nights but AFAIK it's only available for further viewing on Paramount+ (which is PPV).

The show is about a doctor (the "hero" of the show) who has been discredited and is down on his luck who agrees to join the crew of a whaler headed into the Arctic Ocean that runs into problems which puts the doctor in conflict with the "villian" and places him in life-threatening situtations that befall him arising from a consipracy masterminded by someone "behind the scenes." The reason is easily guessed but is revealed in the last episode.

Colin Farrell plays the villian very effectively. He transformed himself physicially for the role (don't think it was CGI or makeup) and it's one of the best performances that I've seen by Farrell.

The show reminded me of another Arctic disaster/ship show called "Terror" written by Ridley Scott about a ship in the Arctic trying to find its way to the Northwest Passage but the premise of that show which (as its name suggests) is based on an unknown and mystical "terror" that besets the crew. So, it's different than "North Water" in this regard.

Both shows are worth watching IMO if you come across them via cable or streaming.
 
Last edited:
sgt1372 said:
Just watched a mini-series called "North Water" that was being shown for free on my BBC TV cable channel that I found very entertaining. It aired in 5 episodes over 3 nights but AFAIK it's only available for further viewing on Paramount+ (which is PPV).

The show is about a doctor (the "hero" of the show) who has been discredited and is down on his luck who agrees to join the crew of a whaler headed into the Arctic Ocean that runs into problems which puts the doctor in conflict with the "villian" and places him in life-threatening situtations that befall him arising from a consipracy masterminded by someone "behind the scenes." The reason is easily guessed but is releaved in the last episode.

Colin Farrell plays the villian very effectively. He transformed himself physicially for the role (don't think it was CGI or makeup) and it's one of the best performances that I've seen by Farrell.

The show reminded me of another Arctic disaster/ship show called "Terror" written by Ridley Scott about a ship in the Arctic trying to find its way to the Northwest Passage but the premise of that show which as its name suggests) is based on an unknown and mystical "terror" that besets the crew. So, it's different than "North Water" in this regard.

Both shows are worth watching IMO if you come across them via cable or streaming.
Click to expand...
There's been 2 seasons of The Terror, and their "thing" is to set these supernatural stories within real historical events. The first one was set during a real expedition to find the northwest passage, and the title has double meaning, as the main ship is the HMS Terror (the other being the Erebus). The 2nd season is set in a Japanese internment camp in CA during WWII.
 
jlauffer said:
There's been 2 seasons of The Terror, and their "thing" is to set these supernatural stories within real historical events. The first one was set during a real expedition to find the northwest passage, and the title has double meaning, as the main ship is the HMS Terror (the other being the Erebus). The 2nd season is set in a Japanese internment camp in CA during WWII.
Click to expand...

Don't think I've seen the 2nd season of "Terror." I'll have to look for it.

I have an interest in the "setting" of the 2nd season but I'm not sure how it made sense to morph the show from one based in the 1840's on a ship in the Arctic into one in a Japanese internment camp during WWII in the 1940's. Quite a stretch IMO.

On a side note: I don't think "spoils" anything to say that polar bears come into play in both "North Water" and the 1st season of "Terror,"
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top