I'm the little one saying "what's sugar tits?"

Heh, i had no idea what you were talking about.

Part of why I think DiF has something to offer on classics is that the cast (wether its the main 4 or any of our subs) is that we are all working in the industry in 2010 in various capacity.  We know what 400 Blows means to an Ebert, AO Scott, or Manhola Dargis.  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]?  That's what DiF does well, I think is offer what these films mean to a certain type of moviegoer.  Sure, THX-1138 has been wanked over for 30 years.  Great.  But is it relevant to us?  And if so, how?  That's what interests me.

Hmmm, that certainly sounds interesting. Which one is the Star Wars nerd and which one is the Star Trek nerd?

Could we possibly get a Scanners commentary if only for some talk about the head explosion scene?

I need to step up my comm listening.

I seen it.

Alright, I've been thinking about this a lot in the car.  The car, of course, is where I listen to my Down in Front because I drive a lot to and from work.  And I have to come to a few conclusions.

First and foremost, for God's sake, Top Gun.  What's more awesome than fake-MiGs blowing up, and a chick driving a Porsche 356 Speedster.

Secondly, you need to do The Fast and the Furious, but you need a car guy with you.  I'd volunteer, but I'm in Connecticut.  But I'm an actual, legal, trophy-winning race car driver, so if you know how to make the connection work, sweet friggin' deal.  I'll suffer through that horrible, yet amazingly quotable out of context, movie to help out.

Additonally, I wouldn't mind seeing some representation from Mel Brooks or Tony Jaa either.  And Blues Brothers, too.  Since it's obvious that nobody can get enough Carrie Fisher.

Good suggestions.  I think what makes the Fast and the Furious so bad is that it's the exact same as Star Wars in one aspect, and it doesn't work.  The technobabble.  You can go on and on in Star Wars or Star Trek with the technobabble, but since there's nothing really to base it on, we buy it.  Or what is based on reality is researched enough to work.

But the Fast and the Furious doesn't hold up to me like that.  "Granny shifting, not double clutchin' like you should" is a line that I suppose sounds good on paper, but you'll not notice a single actor in the movie double clutching.  It's a horrible idea for racing, because double clutching is slow.  You actually push in the clutch, go out of gear and into neutral, feed out the clutch in neutral, then push the clutch in a second time, go into the next gear up, and clutch out one final time.  Truckers double clutch.  Cars from the 1920s double clutch because nobody had bothered to invent synchros yet.  And don't get me started about frying piston rings, overnighting parts from Japan, and what 200 shots of nitrous does to transmissions.

Okay, I suppose that's the end of my rant.  Maybe tomorrow I'll post up my credentials to rant and rave about car stuff in my introductory thread.  I have some pictures and videos of my autocrossing.  Think I have a shot of me at the awards dinner as well, in my jacket where I won my class.

Too late.

I liked DONNIE DARKO just fine. I actually liked it better when it made no sense. Do yourself a favor and don't read up on the backstory/explanation, it just sours the taste. I hear S. DARKO is a disaster, too.

I get the same thing about BOONDOCK SAINTS. Apparently anyone with taste is expected to hate that movie, but I don't. Sure it's derivative and apparently Duffy thought he was making a superbadass movie instead of a silly one, but as a silly pseudo-actioner I like it just fine. Haven't seen the sequel.

I have never seen that movie for some reason but since you just recommended it, I'll give it a watch.