The OP posting pics with Seonho at a wedding..
“Please stop asking if it’s an AI-generated edit..
It really is actor Kim Seonho himself 🙏🏼 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ”
#KimSeonho#김선호
QP your own 🎬🖤 THROWBACK THURSDAY MOVIE!
The legendary 1960 Alfred Hitchcock classic Psycho and that shower scene that made an entire generation think twice before pulling the curtain closed? 😱
But this time, the girl FIGHTS BACK! 💥🦵 “Wrong girl.” 😏
Happy Throwback Thursday, my friends!🖤🎃
And yes Grok has you wear clothes to shower.
#ThrowbackThursday #Psycho
Beloved Cheers Star George Wendt Passed Away One Year Ago; He Would've Been Turning 78 if He's Still With Us 🎬🕊️
George Wendt became a television favorite as Norm Peterson on Cheers, turning a simple bar entrance into one of sitcom history’s most recognizable running jokes. His warmth, dry timing, and easygoing charm made Norm feel like someone audiences genuinely knew.
Wendt carried that same likability into film, sketch comedy, animation, and later television, appearing everywhere from Saturday Night Live and House to Fancy Nancy and The Simpsons. He passed away in 2025 at age 76.
Some of his memorable roles included:
• Norm Peterson — Cheers / Frasier / Wings
• Norm Peterson — The Simpsons / Family Guy
• Bob Swerski — Saturday Night Live
• Harold Gorton — House
• Fat Sam — Fletch
• Chet Bronski — Man of the House
• Grandpa Frank Clancy — Fancy Nancy
• Harry Finley — Forever Young
• Buster — Gung Ho
• Raoul — Garfield on the Town
• Mike Shelby — Sabrina the Teenage Witch
• George Coleman — The George Wendt Show
• Buzzy — Clipped
• Georges — I Lost My Body — English Dub Voice
• Santa Claus — Santa Buddies
• Charlie Prince — Dreamscape
Wendt had a gift for making supporting characters feel instantly familiar, whether he was sitting at a bar, stepping into a comedy sketch, or lending his voice to animation.
Happy birthday in heaven George Wendt! and the effortless humor and warmth he brought to generations of viewers 🍻🕊️
Consider Adaptation: Charlie Kaufman wrote a script about himself trying to write a script based on The Orchid Thief, which is a real book by Susan Orlean about real orchid poacher John Laroche. Adaptation has three basic threads: Susan three years in the past meeting Laroche, Charlie in the present adapting her book, and the two of them converging in Florida at the end. Susan's writing plot really happened and is narrated by quotes from her book, Charlie's screenplay plot is self-aware and semi-fictional, and the final act with both of them is totally fictional. The movie also includes real screenwriting guru Robert McKee and fictional twin brother Donald Kaufman, the latter of whom is writing a script called The Three, about a serial killer with three personalities, which is influenced by McKee's ten principles of screenwriting. In the third act Donald starts helping Charlie finish The Orchid Thief, at which point Adaptation changes from a meandering dramedy about writer's block into a lurid thriller about sex and drugs. Susan tries to kill Charlie, Laroche gets eaten by an alligator, Donald dies in a car crash, and Charlie finishes the script with a character transformation (one of McKee's principles). This is the ending for both The Orchid Thief (the in-movie screenplay) and Adaptation (the real movie we're watching). The character finishes writing his own movie and the final voiceover (which McKee forbade) concludes both at the same time. There's also a bunch of meta dialogue about screenplays and writing, and some punny thematic considerations of "adaptation," but you get the idea. It's an elaborate spinning triple helix structure which ends up being recursive.
Now consider Digger: It's a play within a movie.
But why? It doesn't have the marvelous intricate structure of Adaptation. It also doesn't have the kind of persistent opinionated self-commentary that you'd find in a meta genre parody like Cabin in the Woods. When Digger shows its hand at the end of the first act you might think, "Oh, there's a second layer to attack the first layer. This is why it got bad reviews from liberal critics. It's a satire of a climate satire." But it's not. In fact, there's barely any separation at all between the commenting layer and the commented layer. Both share the same opinion that climate change is real, dire and caused by conservatives. They also share the opinion that the satire being presented is "sad, funny, and necessary," and one of the characters gives a speech explaining this. So why are there two layers? Are they just lampshading how bad the movie is? Are they in-beforing critics? Is it a midwit structural tic from a reaching director, like the character chapters in Weapons? Exotic formal choices usually have a purpose. Funny Games comments on itself, but there's a reason for it. Irreversible plays in reverse, but there's a reason for it. Imagine if Greta Gerwig's upcoming feminist Narnia movie plays in reverse for no reason. That's what this movie is like
Nicolas Cage says he’s “probably not” working with Amazon again after refusing to sign an AI waiver for #SpiderNoir:
“Amazon is a very AI-friendly company, to the tune of $50 billion invested in OpenAI,” Cage said at #NYCC. “I am not an AI-friendly actor, so it’s like, connect those dots! I’m not a member of their club. I didn’t sign the waiver to let him use AI on ‘Spider Noir.’ I’m probably not going to be working with that studio again, but that’s okay.”
https://t.co/msBncshdP6
Again, I was raised here. And I was at a family gathering last night with like 40 people in an apartment and my cousin was like yeah, we used to do this in smaller places so why not? When the weather cooperates, you can just have birthday parties at the beach and at the park.
Definitely having a Guillermo del Toro movie marathon today. It's only right. Going to start with Pan's Labyrinth ✨️🖤 On a side note, I can't wait to add Frankenstein to my Criterion collection.
lewis hamilton bought a 1991 ferrari f40 that sat untouched in a garage for over 30 years
ferrari pulls the engine to restore it and finds stamped on the block:
"44": his race number
and you're telling me you don't believe in coincidences?
YOU ARE THE CHOSEN ONE
Weekend movies…
Ace Ventura: Pet Detective (1994) A
This movie is still hilarious. Sometimes Carrey is a bit much, but it’s loaded with laughs, especially the Crying Game sequence — which is one of the best payoffs to a joke you don’t even see coming in a long, long set-up.
Some truly inspired pieces of comedy.
Carrey released The Mask and Dumb and Dumber that same year. Amazing run.
…And Justice for All (1979) B+
Pacino is great as a caring defense attorney pinballed around an urban judicial system that doesn’t care at all. The rightly famous final scene is a real crowd-pleaser (and morally indefensible). Big laughs. Great supporting cast.
Bordello of Blood (1996) B
The second Tales from the Crypt movie has boobs, blood, vampires, super soakers full of Holy Water, and Dennis Miller firing off the quips like an R-rated Bob Hope. VERY troubled production flopped but entertains and is now a beloved cult movie.
The Krays (1990) C+
Surprisingly flaccid story about England’s most infamous gangsters, degenerate twin brothers. Too episodic.
187 (1997) C+
Love the atmosphere and the slow burn story. But it all leads nowhere. Anticlimactic.
Night of the Living Dead (1990) B
The Great Tom Savini directs The Mighty George Romero’s screenplay-remake of his masterpiece. Much to like. Especially Tony Todd as Ben, but it’s awfully tame as far as the gore. Savini’s unrated cut was released last year. I need to see that.
Watching The Shining for the first time in about 20 years and just marveling at every single composition - framing, lighting, color. Kubrick has this remarkable ability to paint the most harrowing images on the most beautiful canvases.