You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by johnpavlich
Singer is always a blast. I actually made him crack up on Twitter, once. He had guested on the /Filmcast and they talked about Mimic. He was ripping into the kid who played the spoons. I explained to him on Twitter that kid was autistic in the movie. He had no clue and was embarrassed. I told him, "When you get to Hell, that kid will be there to beat on you for eternity, with spoons."
I think I've listened to one episode of The Dissolve, so far. I enjoyed it well enough, but have yet to go back. Maybe it depends on what the topic of discussion is for a given episode.
Am I crazy, or did we have a similar thread a while back, where we listed our favorite podcasts we listen to on a regular basis?
It's hard to contribute to this because I rarely subscribe to podcasts via iTunes or some other pod catcher. I usually just download or stream new, individual episodes of my favorite podcasts during the week.
I agree about Filmspotting. They replaced one of the hosts and became increasingly more pretentious. Sometimes, movie snobbery can reach such great heights, it makes me ask, "Why do you even have a weekly podcast about movies, when you clearly don't like movies?"
The Princess Bride benefits from not having sequels that retroactively reduce the quality of the first film. The Matrix, unfortunately is not so lucky. For example, Agent Smith, a program in the Matrix, kidnaps Morpheus within the Matrix and interrogates him to get codes which will gain him access into Zion, in the real world. It's a great scene, with a menacing, nuanced performance by Hugo Weaving, where he monologues about how humans are a destructive virus and a true danger to the world.
In the two sequels, a giant machine drills into the Earth to infiltrate and destroy Zion and its inhabitants, rendering the MacGuffin and scene from the first film completely irrelevant and unnecessary. As it stands on its own, The Matrix is a unique, inventive sci-fi actioner but is marred by a ponderous, self-important script that spends a bit too much time being pseudo-intellectual. Morpheus tells Neo, "No one can be told what The Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself." Then, he proceeds to spend the next 20 minutes TELLING Neo what The Matrix is!
The Princess Bride is never so meandering. Every scene, set piece, moment and line are all in the service of plot, story and character, often at the same time. There are also things that exist just to make you laugh, which is perfectly acceptable because it is a comedy.
Long story short, The Princess Bride wins.
The Princess Bride vs. Inception
Though it was only a measly $20, I'm still glad to have contributed something to this amazing display of selfless, human decency. Best $20 I ever spent. I'm not even a Harry Potter fan but I couldn't pass up the chance to be present for this tremendous thing you guys did. Man, I fucking love this podcast and this community.
Man, that song is fucking insufferable. ![]()
I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not gonna do that. First off, I doubt those who hated the film would bother to hear me out. And second, even if they did, I don't see them changing their tune by the end.
All I can say is, I simply disagree. For me, personally, I found the premise interesting. I found the characters to have personalities. I felt the performances were mostly natural and well done (I've been a fan of Tony Todd and William Katt for years, for example, so perhaps I'm biased). I liked the dialogue. I was engaged, never bored and I'm even okay with the ending. Yes, I would have preferred the climax not to have been what it was because I feel it hijacks the movie and makes it about something else but it didn't ruin the movie for me or anything. I'm fine with the look of picture as well. Sure, it looks cheap and older than it actually is but so does basically all of British Television (even today, in some cases) and I still love some of those programs.
I don't know. I guess it merely comes down to basic, personal preference. Either the movie worked for you or it didn't. And that's totally fine. It worked for me.
I wasn't specifically arguing that it's real, necessarily. My point was more that the name shouldn't really be an issue in the first place. I mean, what would YOU name a 14,000 year-old man with a sense of humor? Would you prefer, "Smith"?
EDITED TO ADD: Also, the screenwriter is dead, so.... ![]()
The article mentions that at some point, Shia claims that all of this has been a "performance", I guess similar to Joaquin Phoenix or Andy Kaufman. I've always hated this notion. It's a crutch; a cop-out. Assuming it's true, it doesn't make the behavior okay. Even if you're just pretending to be a psychotic asshole, that still means you've done and said psychotic asshole things that still need to be answered for and fixed. The rest of the world wasn't in on it, so you've essentially upset others for the sake of your own selfish "art."
This is why I don't care for pranks, outside of a harmless, water-squirting flower or something. Radio shows who prank call unsuspecting victims and Television prank shows are the worst. If you pull some facade that causes me to worry, get upset or possibly even cry, you're being a dick. Plain and simple. Popping up and going, "Everything's cool, I was only playing around," doesn't automatically get you off the hook, either. In fact, you've made it worse. Besides, what if the "joke" results in something you can't take back or fix with a simple, "JK LOL!"?
Anyway, I've rambled on long enough. My point is, fuck Shia Labeouf. ![]()
P.S. Because even if this whole thing has been some elaborate "hoax", he's still an arrogant prick for constantly getting into physical fights with people.
Oh, definitely! I'm just saying that while both Matthew and WAYDM reach the same basic conclusion, he goes about getting there in a different, albeit more succinct way (his video is 11 minutes long, whereas you guys take advantage of the film's running time, of course). He also suggests the film has too many disparate ideas and threads for any one of them to provide total fulfillment or depth, which I don't think you guys talked about, though I could be wrong.
Judging by what is said in the episode itself, it's not just you.
Jimmy B says yes, fireproof78 says no and Dorkman I THINK is saying yes, kind of?
So, which is it? Having not seen the film but having consumed nearly every other opinion under the sun, I get the impression that the consensus on Star Trek: Into Darkness, is that it's a lot like watching a couple episodes of Glee: The characters don't grow past a certain point because any steps they take towards that are immediately undone by a giant reset button at the end, so the next episode can start over and repeat the same lessons, to the point where you'd almost expect the characters to not even change their clothes, like a damn cartoon. Furthermore, anything that the narrative may force the authors and the audience to commit to or deal with the consequences of can also be reset by either retconning to an alternate timeline or just plain forgetting about a character's "arc". See also: Heroes.
Yeah, I hit a post early in this thread where not only was Bullock's backstory revealed but the end of the movie was as well, both without warning (I think something similar was done in the actual podcast episode and then later, Trey said, "spoiler" either right before or right after dropping a plot bomb, rendering the "warning" pointless, either way). I saw that and went, "Well, I can't UN-KNOW that so fuck it, I might as well keep reading this thread."
I'm glad Stand Up Guys got a last minute recommendation. My Mom and I watched it on Netflix on a whim. After the first 10 minutes or so, where you have to suffer through really cliched jokes (the old man took too many boner pills and now his boner is dangerously big and won't go down), the film becomes genuinely funny, entertaining and surprisingly moving. There's some really insightful dialogue near the end that I was not expecting at all. Not a lot happens in the movie, but the stuff that does happen is fun to watch.
A movie I feel similarly about from this year that I'm surprised wasn't discussed was Luc Besson's The Family. It was his first American film in ages and for me, ended up being one of the better action comedies I'd seen in a long time. There's a really ridiculous plot contrivance involving a newspaper but outside of that, I can't find any other faults with the picture.
I've not seen The World's End, yet. From the sound of it, I'm worried I may have the same feelings I had with Scott Pilgrim, which is that I'll probably like it but it won't be a "good" film due to having unlikable leads and unearned character "arcs". Also, while I'm sure that essay makes a good case in favor of the film, the film should still be able to speak for itself and stand on its own to be good. If it can't/doesn't do that and one has to consume outside material after the fact, then I think the movie failed.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by johnpavlich
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.