You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Zarban
Let's not confuse directing with screenwriting, though.
Once he began to see how the cinematic aspects of filming the story were clashing with the story itself, maybe Christopher Nolan should have sat down with his screenwriter and reworked the-- Oh, wait...
Was Inception really that well directed? I found it somewhat unnecessarily confusing and missing in certain opportunities. I still don't understand the snow level or what Mal was doing in the opening sequence vs what she did at the end.
I just got a huge 4 foot by 6 foot (bus shelter) poster on eBay. It shows the team in the city with the city bending over it. Awesome looking, but that moment didn't happen that way in the film and was entirely inconsequential to the plot. It feels like the guy who made the poster understood what was cinematic about the movie better than the director did.
Imagine if, in Con Air, the entire airplane crash sequence was a dream, and prisoners on the real plane actually landed normally and then overpowered the guards. Or imagine the Death Star trench run in Star Wars was a training simulation, and the real attack was a computer virus that R2 implanted in a quiet stealth raid.
...400 Blows.... But what does it mean to a VFX'er in their early 20's, an Editor in his 30's, or a Director in his [REDACTED]? ...
Hmmm, that certainly sounds interesting. Which one is the Star Wars nerd and which one is the Star Trek nerd?
Fuck him. He killed a bunch of people and tried to kill more, including children, and seriously fucked up his son in general and his most important relationships specifically. Fuck him and his dying request in the eye.
Ooh, this is awkward... I don't know how to say this, but this seems like the right moment. Michael, you're directly descended from notorious cannibal Klaus "Babyfood" Scott, who ate 17 babies and also raped them. Also, no one knows that but you and me.
Phew! I'm glad I got that off my chest. I hope this doesn't color our friendship. Hey, see you for pizza on Saturday!
Fellini was a disappointment for me.
Kurosawa and Bergman were surprisingly accessible.
Great westerns are great.
"Dern in Front" is hilarious.
Hitchcock is so much fun. I don't understand why there aren't more fan commentaries. That said, Rear Window left me cold compared to Vertigo and NxNW.
I can't imagine what DIF would do with most of Eddie's film school list. DIF does not address theme or motif or even character arcs for the most part. What can you say about a tone-poem like THX-1138, anyway? "Maggie McOmie looks great naked and bald"?
For the record, in my opinion, Brian was expressing his opinion in a very reasonable way. It was Michael who, altho he said he liked the movie, was nitpicking it to death like a New Jersey housewife.
Finally caught up with this one. Great job! This was a lot of fun, both to hear Trey's stories and to hear the rest of the panel discover that it's not a bad movie. I would say that Kevin Dillon's hair basically derails the film, but Shawnee Smith and the great physical effects save it from being terrible.
I really like Bugsy Malone. Pretty sure Zarban does too
Bugsy Malone? A nice guy. A little too popular with the broads for my liking... But a nice guy.
"And now you have watched Birth of a Nation, which means you never have to watch it again."
Right. I'm not especially sorry I watched it, and it really would be interesting to hear a film scholar explain its historical significance, but it's nothing I'd wish on any unsuspecting soul. It's just a historical curiosity.
Triumph of the Will is another one. Maybe one of these days I'll get around to watching it—one of these days when I'm feeling really, really cheerful and optimistic.
Birth of a Nation? That movie may have been groundbreaking in its time as a directorial tour-de-force, but those lessons have been learned and applied ever since. Meanwhile, its treatment of its subject is just jaw-droppingly, horrendously, brain-bogglingly idiotic.
At first it's hilarious. And then you stop and think: this fucker really bought into this shit. And a whole bunch of other fuckers rebuilt the KKK based on its inspiration.
I got a call from my sister a few months ago asking me to settle a dispute between my 8-y-o nephew and his friend about whether or not Vader was already dead when Luke burned him on the pyre.
Warmed my heart.
Cool things are cool! 
Megaupload? He can't set up a free blog and post it there?
I'm not a huge Bond fan ... They always seem to be out of touch with the times or rebooting, why don't they just wait till a great script's ready instead of 'time to make another one, start writing!'
As I understand it, nobody waits for inspiration in Hollywood (or Pinewood).
Thanks, DIF and everyone in the chat room. I wouldn't have enjoyed the Spidey 2 commentary without the hecklers' chorus. And I certainly wouldn't have watched Benjamin Button without a support group.
I saw 10 when it came out, and despite being only slightly younger than Bo Derek, I simply couldn't grasp why anyone with an ounce of sense would cheat on Julie Andrews.
Julie Andrews is the perfect woman. I've said it before: I don't know if I'm in love with Julie Andrews or if I want to be her.
I know I'll get flamed for this (I know Zarban doesn't like it much) but I really enjoy Live and Let Die. It's one of my favourites.
Yeah. I thought I liked that one until I watched it again recently and realized it was really pseudo-blaxploitation. Not much worked for me but Jane Seymour and the 7-Up guy.
As someone who lived it in realtime, The Spy Who Loved Me was mind-blowingly awesome at the time
My little 11-year-old head could not contain the awesomeness. This is the film that had me going home and retelling the entire story to my mother at her bedroom door. Way better than The Incredible Melting Man, and way, way better than Grizzly.
But a year later Star Wars debuted, and the next Bond film became Moonraker because that justified them doing an outer-spacey story. And badly.
Moonraker was a joke. It literally felt like we were being kidded. As a child I thought it was dumb.
and the movie after THAT was For Your Eyes Only, which is one of my faves. Also, a gorgeous young girl throws herself at him and he turns her down.
But Lynn-Holly Johnson was about 22 playing about 18, and Roger Moore was 3 years older than Sean Connery—but I WASN'T. Suddenly, the reality of an aging Bond became unbearable. And Lois "Moneypenny is starting to resemble a drag queen" Maxwell wasn't helping any.
I was always partial to On Her Majesty's Secret Service. George Lazenby is way better than people remember, and the ending was shocking for the time. Solid forgotten film.
Lazenby was great, and the tone is marvelous and really puts character into Bond. But the plot is ridiculous. And the ending is a gratuitous punch in the groin.
They might as well have had Bond miraculously grow a third arm and then have that arm chopped off by a deathtrap. Then in later movies, they could have had Bond wistfully rubbing the scarred stump and reacting angrily whenever anyone mentioned it.
I love the Bond series substantially more than it deserves. If DIF wants to sample it, I suggest...
Dr. No because it's the first
Goldfinger because it's one of the best
You Only Live Twice because it has the hallowed out volcano
The Spy Who Loved Me because it's one of the best
Goldeneye because it's the best in a long time
Casino Royale because it's a good reboot
Okay, I've seen it now and enjoyed it quite a lot, at least as much as the Attack of the Clones review. Maybe there was just a lot more interesting stuff to complain about in TPM. After all, both Clones and Sith at least know who the main character is.
Also, I don't mean "slow" as a pejorative here, but "deliberate" is probably the better word. Most films pre-1970 moved pretty slowly except screwball comedies and good westerns, and you and I love them.
In Psycho (1960), it takes an hour for the first kill, another 20 minutes or so for the second, and another 15 minutes or so for the climax. And what happens in between? Talk, and a lot of it by characters we don't much care about. There are zero chases, zero fights, and almost zero melodramatic revelations. Whatever it is, it's not "fast-paced." But is it boring? Hell no.
Yes. Altho I respectfully submit that there is little danger of DIF parroting the dialog of film critics past.
Megashark vs Iron Man!
Now Brian is my favorite!
/fickle
Here's my idea for Iron Man 3 (like that matters much
To reduce his workload he designs a remote Iron Man installing Jarvis as the control system.
He has to face Jarvis toe to toe in an epic Iron Man on Iron Man battle. Tony then must reconfigure Jarvis.
Ack! Iron Man fights another Iron Man?! That's what happened in the first two movies!
I love the idea of Jarvis controlling the suit, tho. I can imagine him operating it while Tony is unconscious inside it or flying it to Tony to save him.
Tony: Iron Man... you've... come to save me.
Jarvis: At your service, sir. [bows slightly]
Tony: You didn't bring fresh socks and underwear, by any chance, did you?
Jarvis: I'm filled with socks and underwear, sir.
Iron Man's weakness isn't other iron men; it's the fact that he has to put the suit on AND he's known (dumb move, coming out to the world...). The IM2 scene at the track is great for exploiting that, but I really didn't like the magic-jammies-in-a-briefcase gag. I know it's from the comics, but it's dumb. He should have had to run and hide like a normal guy.
The villain in IM3 needs to be a horrible mutant monster, in my opinion: man and his technology vs nature's worst case scenario.
I love Leone, but I wasn't taken by Once Upon a Time in America. However, I also just kind of caught it part-way in on cable. However however, I also first encountered The Godfather that way, and it was mesmerizing. The Godfather is easily one of the greatest films ever made. Godfather II is terrific, but I don't quite get people who think it's better than the first.
I'll note that there are a handful of fan commentaries for Godfather, Godfather II, Wizard of Oz, and Casablanca, but zero commentaries for Citizen Kane. It's slow, methodical, character-based, and narratively complex but emotionally simple. It's ingeniously shot, and as a result is mainly beloved by directors and cinematographers, not film lovers. Wells and most reviewers prefer The Magnificent Ambersons. I like much of Wells' other work better.
In short, if DIF does it, very tough to do well.
Now, Apocalypse Now also has zero commentaries, and is nearly the opposite of Kane. It's methodical but not slow, episode-based, and narratively simple but emotionally complex. Plus, it has explosions and helicopters and other crazy shit.
In short, that's a win-win, regardless of your opinion of it.
Spidey was the Man. I had more issues of his 3 or 4 titles than anything else.
The movies were fun, but Maguire was stuck in nerd mode and didn't capture the way Parker grew out of the awkward teen phase and got cool. That happens when you get bitten by a radioactive spider and become stronger than everyone but Hulk. You get cool.
That's what happened when I got bitten by a radioactive business consultant.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Zarban
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
