MovieChat Forums > degray9 > Replies
degray9's Replies
You work in IT?
Some people can remain in remission for years with the right treatment.
Probably because like the first of any series, it feels like the beginning of setting off on a grand adventure. The beginnings are always the best :D
Too bad my office is attached to a store and warehouse, so I can never work from home :/
Actually Romeo & Juliet is based on a bunch of previous stories and retellings, that traces all the way back to the myth of Pyramus and Thisbe. In fact, Shakespeare got most of his material from other people. Everything is just repackaged and resold again and again. The difference is the care in which the story is retold. Modern movies are mostly disposable crap with no style, Lol
As Roger Ebert once said, “a story is not about what it’s about, it’s about how it goes about it.”
Long rant coming, but it changed for me over the years. The first actual Star Wars film I remember seeing was Phantom Menace when it came out (yes I’m comparatively young), although I knew all about Darth Vader and the Force and whatnot beforehand due to the series being part of the cultural milieu; you don’t have to see a S-W movie to know what it’s about. I then saw Attack of the Clones in theaters, and somewhere that same year I saw the original 1977 Star Wars on television and was confused. It looked more dated and low budget compared to what I was used to seeing Star Wars as. For some reason I thought it was some spinoff from the main saga that they were showing reruns of. It wasn’t until I bought the special editions in 2004 that I really understood what the original trilogy was all about. My favourite then was Return of the Jedi because it had the most action and drama, and the best space battle. Me and my friends agreed that Empire was the slowest and most boring. A few years later Empire grew on me and I began to see it as the most thematic and darkest of the series. However, as I grew older I began to prefer the original Star Wars out of all of them, especially the despecialized theatrical version. It truly is a combination of all things that made S-W great: cutting edge sci-fi, mysticism, swashbucklers, fairytales, western/samurai, hard boiled fiction, Flash Gordon/buck Rodgers, Greek myth, Legend of King Arthur, war films, David Lean epics, Lord of the Rings, Dune, and Star Trek merged into one cohesive whole with revolutionary special effects. It condensed all our pop cultural heritage into one perfect fantasy universe and was the first real effects-laden blockbuster. Everything about it is perfect to me now and it’s my favourite out of all of them. One of the greatest films of all time for me.
Trump is a neoliberal just like all his ilk.
I sincerely hope so. Or they might end up doing a Bond tv show.
Did he tell you to get off his green?
How dare you insult Sam Borington like that
📼 🧟♀️📺 💀
<url> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f8CEBOHmEbk</url>
You’re bang on about it being due to luck and the right choice of roles. In an alternate universe Cranston probably could have been as big (pun intended) as Tom Hanks, but he wasn’t dealt the same cards. For one, Cranston was dissuaded about going into show business by his parents so he got started much later. He also didn’t find real success until Malcolm in the Middle, by which time he was already in his early 40s. Hanks on the other hand caught success at the age of 28 with the surprise hit Splash. It’s safe to say that without Ron Howard that Hanks would have struggled. Hanks only really became a great and nuanced actor by the early 90s thanks to the opportunity afforded to him by his commercial success in the 80s. Cranston never quite got that early break. Cranston’s greatest roles were on television where he fit the part of the neurotic and uptight middle-class family man; in essence his roles of Hal from MitM and Walt from BB are the same. Hanks had already mastered these kinds of suburban paranoia roles (Bonfire of Vanities) in his 80s comedies and was able to branch out from there into greater, Oscar-winning things. Hanks became the next Jimmy Stewart and practically a cultural icon — Cranston is more like Larry Hagman.
I would argue the opposite, that there is too much twee or black and white morality where Tarantino attempts to “get serious.” Oh look, Nazis bad, white slavers bad, evil hippie cultists bad. His biggest flaw is he makes movies for the immature mind and is too hung up on style over substance. He thinks his movies are some kind of panacea for racism, his ego is so massive recently that he can’t see he just makes glorified exploitation flicks for brain dead audiences who crave violence. His biggest flaw as a director is he’s massively overrated who really only had one true bonafide ‘hit,’ Pulp Fiction, and has been coasting ever since.
There’s a sex scene in Jackie Brown
Pauline Kael, biggest moron critic out there
Except in saving private Ryan the war and fighting are a part of the plot and the movie wouldn’t work without it, the nostalgia in this is not essential
I hated her escape sequence, all of a sudden the baddies don’t know how to shoot at her and just run up to her to be shot in the head one after another? Too much plot armor.
I haven’t watched much of NastyNathaniel, the main ones I watch are Auditing America and Amagansett Press.
Audit the Audit is another good channel, but that one mainly breaks down and analyzes police interactions and determines what is and isn’t lawful according to statutes and codes.