New Edge just funded successfully as of today (with 28 days still to go!) But all signs for what Molly has done and the fan interest shows this is going to be quite the little mini-event for sword & sorcery fandom!
Thanks for sharing my reviews! The next parts will be going into the Cattle Raid of Cooley where we'll truly see how Cú Cullan and Ferdia's battle is adapted!
It's interesting -- you're the second person to say my C+ review of Land of bad, which states that the first half is kinda boring, is "very positive." I guess, like the movie, if it leaves you walking out with a good feeling, you remember that the most.
I've never seen a defense of Cocktail before -- always assumed it was just a star-driven mediocrity, though I've never seen it. Seemed like an odd choice when the others are all big swings. I have seen Heaven's Gate and Ishtar, a good decade or so after the fact, hoping for the best, and did not like either. HG for stuff like the endless roller-skating sequence, and Ishtar because I found the main characters fundamentally unlikable, which is deadly for that sort of film. I can grant that they were at least bold, personal takes, but their execution doesn't work...for me, and clearly the public at the time.
Fair enough on the Land of Bad review. Sometimes a C+ starts out poor, but leaves you feeling satisfied when you are done.
Heaven's Gate never got a chance with audiences. It was excoriated by critics during an era where building momentum was necessary. To be fair, I've never seen the theatrical release. It's shorter than the version I saw by a considerable amount, so the skating sequence seems shorter by comparison. Though I will note that is one of the few things that was positively reviewed at the time, for the cinematography. It's a slow burn to be sure, as is Days of Heaven, but I think it's worth it in the end even as it gets very brutal.
As for Ishtar, yeah if you don't like the leads it doesn't work. I find them goofy and likeable and that's why I like it, but I can see finding them as annoying and narcissistic as their people playing them were at that specific moment and that could be a turnoff. I can't blame the critics for that film's failure. It was a cult film on a blockbuster budget. It's one of two that Warren Beatty made, the other being Town & Country which is the biggest flop ever having only earned 10% of its cost back in the box office and that excludes marketing and theater cuts, so it's clear that Beatty is willing to take big risks with small payoffs.
I like Cocktail. It's a film critics wanted to hate. It's exactly the kind of film Siskel and Ebert loved to tear into and that Pauline Kael despised for its mundanity. They are wrong. It's fun and audiences got it. It cost $20 million and made $171 when that was a lot of money. As I said, Bryan Brown steals the show and his interplay with Cruise is fantastic. I know you don't like Cruise, and have solid reasons for it, so I won't recommend it to you, but I will say the critics got it wrong. It's not a banal fantasy, rather an expose of the banality of the 80s which was torn between the financial set with all the blow in the world and the get rich quick set with caviar dreams and champagne tastes (or whatever it is that Robin Leach said).
Nice roundup. Thanks for the HT.
Great music today
God I loved Knightmare. What a show.
Thank You for the shoutout!
New Edge just funded successfully as of today (with 28 days still to go!) But all signs for what Molly has done and the fan interest shows this is going to be quite the little mini-event for sword & sorcery fandom!
I'm pretty jazzed. Haven't backed yet, but will.
Thanks for sharing my reviews! The next parts will be going into the Cattle Raid of Cooley where we'll truly see how Cú Cullan and Ferdia's battle is adapted!
Can't wait to read your review of those sections.
It's interesting -- you're the second person to say my C+ review of Land of bad, which states that the first half is kinda boring, is "very positive." I guess, like the movie, if it leaves you walking out with a good feeling, you remember that the most.
I've never seen a defense of Cocktail before -- always assumed it was just a star-driven mediocrity, though I've never seen it. Seemed like an odd choice when the others are all big swings. I have seen Heaven's Gate and Ishtar, a good decade or so after the fact, hoping for the best, and did not like either. HG for stuff like the endless roller-skating sequence, and Ishtar because I found the main characters fundamentally unlikable, which is deadly for that sort of film. I can grant that they were at least bold, personal takes, but their execution doesn't work...for me, and clearly the public at the time.
Fair enough on the Land of Bad review. Sometimes a C+ starts out poor, but leaves you feeling satisfied when you are done.
Heaven's Gate never got a chance with audiences. It was excoriated by critics during an era where building momentum was necessary. To be fair, I've never seen the theatrical release. It's shorter than the version I saw by a considerable amount, so the skating sequence seems shorter by comparison. Though I will note that is one of the few things that was positively reviewed at the time, for the cinematography. It's a slow burn to be sure, as is Days of Heaven, but I think it's worth it in the end even as it gets very brutal.
As for Ishtar, yeah if you don't like the leads it doesn't work. I find them goofy and likeable and that's why I like it, but I can see finding them as annoying and narcissistic as their people playing them were at that specific moment and that could be a turnoff. I can't blame the critics for that film's failure. It was a cult film on a blockbuster budget. It's one of two that Warren Beatty made, the other being Town & Country which is the biggest flop ever having only earned 10% of its cost back in the box office and that excludes marketing and theater cuts, so it's clear that Beatty is willing to take big risks with small payoffs.
I like Cocktail. It's a film critics wanted to hate. It's exactly the kind of film Siskel and Ebert loved to tear into and that Pauline Kael despised for its mundanity. They are wrong. It's fun and audiences got it. It cost $20 million and made $171 when that was a lot of money. As I said, Bryan Brown steals the show and his interplay with Cruise is fantastic. I know you don't like Cruise, and have solid reasons for it, so I won't recommend it to you, but I will say the critics got it wrong. It's not a banal fantasy, rather an expose of the banality of the 80s which was torn between the financial set with all the blow in the world and the get rich quick set with caviar dreams and champagne tastes (or whatever it is that Robin Leach said).