Murray Hamilton played Mayor Vaughn in Jaws . He was still the Mayor in Jaws II . It’s important to vote, people!
That’s a good one!
Finally got around to seeing Pain Hustlers (2023). A solid movie that tells a good if not especially profound story, well made and well acted. It lacks the emotional punch of Dopesick and is thematically closer to Wolf of Wall Street, complete with some over-the-top scenes once the company becomes successful that seem to have been lifted right out of WoWS. Definitely worth watching, although I could do without some of the occasionally raucous soundtrack. Recommended.
Saw the movie, but never read the book.
Didn’t miss much.
The Lost Daughter
Great film
Tried to watch Joe Kidd, the old Eastwood oater. El stinko.
The Goonies (1985) came out when I was in college, so it was just never in my wheelhouse. I finally watched it the other day and … oh my god … what a shitty movie. Wasted casting - Joey Pants looks like he was really phoning it in and I’m convinced that Anne Ramsey has only ever been cast because she’s hideously ugly and no other reason. And - I’m sorry - but Corey Feldman and that kid who played Chunk are the worst over-actors I have ever seen on screen.
Full disclosure, I bailed about an hour in. I didn’t figure it was going to get any better. I don’t get the love for this turd. It doesn’t even capture any of the adventurous feelings of other youthful movies or other Speilberg movies (he produced it).
Cannot recommend.
It’s one of those “you had to be there” movies, it has been visited by the suck fairy, heavily.
It absolutely is one of those movies that, if you grew up with it, and were its target market back then, it transcends objective assessment. I am the exact age it was going for, so I adore it. But I can see why most people dislike it if they come to it at another time.
I watched it last year and kinda liked it okay. But my expectations were set low because 1970’s Western. But I think in the realm of 1960’s/1970’s Westerns it is sorta, kinda okayish (a low bar to clear). I mean it’s no Little Big Man or Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean, but I’d rather watch it than Barquero or Two Mules for Sister Sara.
Ha ha! Now I am the only person of our generation who has not seen it!
Nuh uhhhh.
Okay. Sounds like we both win.
That was before they got into the caverns with the clues and traps? You bailed before it got great.
That film is a true golden classic.
Saltburn (2023). One hallmark of a talented creative filmmaker is the ability to make a great film that is so completely different in tone and character from a previous one. This is another triumph for Emerald Fennell, though it doesn’t achieve nearly the same heights and emotional impact of Promising Young Woman, a Best-Picture Oscar nominee that is admittedly a very high bar to compare anything to.
The first half-hour or so is basically setting the stage, and planting clues along the way that will blossom in due course. One may well wonder where this movie is going at this point, but things start to develop quickly if somewhat inexplicably at first once the protagonist arrives at Saltburn, a massive English country estate inhabited by apparent misfits.
I don’t understand what the director thought she was achieving by filming in the old 1.37:1 aspect ratio.
1.33, and she likes a face to fill the whole screen apparently
No, it really is 1:37:1.
1.33:1, or 4:3, is the old television aspect ratio. 1.37:1 is the so-called “academy” aspect ratio that was used in film for many decades. It’s just a little bit wider than 4:3.
Interesting interview with Fennell, thanks for the article! Reading Fennel’s rationale for using the old academy aspect ratio, I have to agree with her. She talks not just about faces (which this movie has innumerable close-ups of) but about the imposing vertical structures of the estate. She’s right – not everything is better in widescreen.
Well, this is a tangential discussion , but: No, it really is 1.33. Emerald Fennell says it’s 1.33, and there are like a dozen articles or Reddit threads talking about the 1.33. Here’s an article from American Cinematographer talking about it, and another from World of Reel.
https://theasc.com/articles/saltburn-weaving-a-web-of-obsession
Having tested a number of different aspect ratios during prep, Sandgren decided that the interior compositions he and Fennell were after ultimately warranted the use of a near-square format. They therefore made the atypical decision to capture Saltburn in 1.33:1. “Emerald wanted it to feel like we were looking into a dollhouse or an old-school TV and watching the characters inside,” Sandgren says.
The rooms in the Saltburn estate are themselves square and tall, so shooting 1.33:1 facilitated fuller views inside.
This is one of those nitpicks that’s perfect for the SDMB! 
The first article you linked, and others, talk about Saltburn being filmed in the Academy aspect ratio, which is indeed 1:37:1 (technically, 1:375:1).
We can continue to post competing contradictory links, but I have here the certified results of the Wolfpup Masking Tape Test. 
To wit, I placed a piece of masking tape on one edge of the Saltburn video image, and then played an image from a 1:33:1 TV sitcom. The TV image was narrower – not by much, but just about enough to account for the different between 1.33 and 1.37.
Of course it’s possible that some other artifact accounts for this difference, but I rather suspect that the “1:33” number is being bandied about because it’s the familiar old TV format that everyone associates with the square-ish 4:3 image. I might be more inclined to believe 1.33 as exact if the film had been shot in video, but my understanding is it was shot in conventional 35mm.
I mean, the director and the DP have both literally described it as 1.33:1, but sure.