MovieChat Forums > JackNorth > Replies
JackNorth's Replies
I'll be honest, I never connected that scene. In my defense, I was probably settling in and pouring my coffee. I did see that, but I guess I hadn't started "watching" it yet. I thought there was something odd about him picking up the dead bird. In fact, I think I told my wife that he should wash his hands! I'll have to check out the beginning again, and look for the connection. But I'm kinda thinking is this film even worth the effort?
To be honest, it's been a couple weeks since we watched it, and I've already flushed the details out of my head. (I only have so much room! :) I don't even remember any suggested plot point, or didn't recognize it as such at the time.
I get it. Imagine if an 18-year-old actress were to play a 12 or 13-year-old girl. It would be really, really, creepy.
I'm not condemning this or other pics portraying teenage nudity. In fact, I shamefully admit to having enjoyed it from time to time. And from another time to a completely other time.
But the observation, IMHO, is valid.
Quite good. Made me smile.
The DVD versions could be stretched to fit widescreen, but that always makes the people look...w-i-d-e. Quite often you'd see films that were originally shot in widescreen cropped to fit the old-fashioned 4:3 TV screens. (They looked awful.) Blu-Ray discs do not allow the aspect ratios to be fiddled with, although there are some, I think, that offer several versions on the same disc.
The film was not shot in widescreen. The "shape" you see is the exact same as seen in movie theaters.
The Founding Fathers were men of the "enlightenment" and did generally believe in freeing people from political bondage. The irony, of course, has always been that not all of them agreed on which people were entitled to be truly free. White men, certainly. Women? Well, kinda. Native Americans? Not so much. Black men? We'll leave that up to the states. That the 18th Century revolutionary "awakening" is now being portrayed by people of color is in many ways revolutionary, itself, and makes the irony that much clearer. There are moments in the show that you'd swear were written 3 weeks ago, not 5 or 6 years ago, or 244 years ago.
By the way, needing subtitles while watching musicals is not a new thing. Operas are often incomprehensible even if you speak the language of the piece without the stage gizmo that shows the lyrics. In the 1880's and 90's audiences were given booklets with lyrics at Gilbert and Sullivan shows, the better to understand and appreciate the clever writing. This is the case with Hamilton, as well. The creativity is even more impressive when you can actually follow the words.
Other children? They barely had Ritchie! A lot of epidoses (most?) made little or no references at all to him. Every time I see an episode with him in it, I go "oh, yeah! They have a kid!"
My wife and I just watched it. Neither of have read the book, though my wife had seen one of the earlier film versions. The timeline jumps were a bit of a jolt each time, and it took a few moments for us to reset. But we felt it made us work just a bit harder for no good reason. Still, a very enjoyable movie.
How odd, then, that you would log on just to let us know.
Then I guess I should feel free to say I don't care what you are not interested in.
Odo, Deep Space Nine
They do it a lot in this show because Frasier and Niles, in particular, like to appear erudite or formal, even in many casual situations.
(If you're trying to get a bead on Americans by watching Frasier, then you'll be way off.)
Jebus f*cking Ch!st...how bored must you be to post such an inane comment.
(No, the irony of me replying to it is not lost on me.)
:)
More to the point; if the villagers built the wall to keep Kong out, why did they put in a door big enough for him to get through?
Hopefully you heard it on a great sound system. Max Steiner's score was (and still is) an absolute work of art! Many years ago I saw it at a small store-front revival theater in Nashville, and the proprietor installed a new sound system for that particular film (and kept it for others that followed, of course.)
Wife and I just caught a matinee. Our thought was if... <SPOILERS??>
...The guy was supposed to be dead (which was proven to the authorities how?), and his house had been closed up (as evidenced by everything being covered with sheets and plastic) why wasn't the dog removed to a shelter or something?
But even with a few lapses in logic, a pretty good thriller.
Kids. Very young kids. 6 year olds. Yeah, I find that objectionable.
Agreed.
Me, too. I hate prunes; they make me shit all squirty. And...oh, "prudes." Who the hell says "prudes" anymore? But, yeah, me too!
But another thing I fuckin' hate is 6 & 7-year-olds saying "fuck." Goddammit, that pisses me the fuck off! ;P
...then...? What?