As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

A Thread About Movies

1888991939499

Posts

  • GodfatherGodfather Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    Back to the Future? Ghostbusters? Seriously?

    Come on dude

    Godfather on
  • Giggles_FunsworthGiggles_Funsworth Blight on Discourse Bay Area SprawlRegistered User regular
    gjaustin wrote: »
    Just got home from seeing a midnight showing of Prometheus in IMAX. I'm definitely glad I went, as I really enjoyed. Easily my favorite movie so far this year.

    The 3D was well done. It wasn't intrusive, but added a subtle depth to the picture that made it feel more realistic. The set design, CGI, location scouting, or whatever was absolutely phenomenal. The entire movie was simultaneously beautiful and yet wrong. Fassbender was amazing as always and Theron, Rapace, and Elba fit well in their roles.

    Now for theories. First the obvious one that I suspect everyone else has figured out without even seeing the movie.
    I went in believing the ship from the trailer is the one from the beginning of Alien, and left believing the same. The Space Jockeys actually being more or less human was a big surprise though. I'm guessing I know what the Nephilim from Genesis are in the movie world...

    Now for my more personalized one, on "Why"
    I think that they were trying to terraform Earth and humans were an accident. And now they were ready to colonize...

    The only problem I see with the theory is that they helped out some ancient humans. But that's easily explained by political shifts, desire for a slave race, desire for pre-built infrastructure, or just a couple outcasts wanting to be worshiped as Gods.
    See, I was thinking that it was the same ship up until the space jockey got out of the pilot's seat and came after her. No space jockey in the seat, not the same ship, other problems with it being the same ship, no egg vats on board. I kind of feel like the movie was originally supposed to end when she was under the ship right as her suit told her she had two minutes of oxygen left. That would have been a nice ending with good closure. After it ended I was talking to a friend who had followed the media leading up to the release, and he said the was a direct quote from Ridley Scott in an interview where he said that it wasn't a true prequel, but more of a film that shared the "same DNA" as the original Alien, that was then going to branch off into its own universe.

    As for why they nurtured Earth, and created humans, I figure they wanted to use us as cattle, they needed us to harvest the Xenomorphs. Which is what I figure David was getting at with his "Sometimes to create life you have to destroy it first." line.

    Other things that bugged me about the movie:

    What the fuck was going on with the space jockey at the beginning of the movie? Why did he commit suicide by ingesting a bioweapon?

    Also I was incredibly disappointed that after everything she went through in the movie, Shaw, rather than piloting a ship chock full of bioweapon right into the heart of the Space Jockey's home planet, killing God so to speak, wanted to find out why Daddy was mad at us. Pretty disappointing IMHO.

    Not that I feel ripped off or anything, it was a fantastic movie, and I am eagerly awaiting further stories in this universe now that I know that's how Ridley Scott intends to play things.

  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    Godfather wrote: »
    Back to the Future? Ghostbusters? Seriously?

    Come on dude

    They're both objectively pretty flawlessly-constructed movies. That needn't mean "perfect for you," in the same way that a perfect hamburger has no utility to a vegan. What it does mean is that one could use either movie to teach a course about screenplay construction. They do the things that people generally expect movies to do in the ways that people who make movies for a living have learned are generally best.

    rRwz9.gif
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    Ghostbusters is slightly more episodic than it really should be, and the effects are a little dated these days, but otherwise, yes, it's pretty perfect.

    Which reminds me, Ross's list is also missing Groundhog Day, which is just as perfect but significantly deeper.

    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • HeisenbergHeisenberg Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    Here's my top 10 list, as long as we're doing lists.

    10. The Return of the King
    9. Seven
    8. Raging Bull
    7. The Hurt Locker
    6. No Country for Old Men
    5. Apocalypse Now
    4. The Godfather
    3. Full Metal Jacket
    2. 2001: A Space Odyssey
    1. Blade Runner (Final Cut blu-ray)

    Heisenberg on
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    I think you could improve Groundhog Day by casting something other than Andie McDowell. It's the film's only failing.

  • GodfatherGodfather Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    Jacobkosh wrote: »
    Godfather wrote: »
    Back to the Future? Ghostbusters? Seriously?

    Come on dude

    They're both objectively pretty flawlessly-constructed movies. That needn't mean "perfect for you," in the same way that a perfect hamburger has no utility to a vegan. What it does mean is that one could use either movie to teach a course about screenplay construction. They do the things that people generally expect movies to do in the ways that people who make movies for a living have learned are generally best.

    Yeah I already know, it's just off-putting to see those on a perfect film list is all.

    I.............disagree about them being a perfect example of anything when showcasing good film-making techniques. They're no means bad, just, well

    Hrm

    Godfather on
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    Bogart wrote: »
    I think you could improve Groundhog Day by casting something other than Andie McDowell. It's the film's only failing.

    apparently, and this is genuine celebrity gossip I got from an old forum friend who worked for her, her lips move when she reads

    rRwz9.gif
  • Delta AssaultDelta Assault Registered User regular
    No Country For Old Men?

    You guys sure like shitty endings.

  • TheBigEasyTheBigEasy Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    I have a question: Why on earth does it cost so much money to make a movie? I can sorta understand that the big tentpole summer blockbusters cost a shit-ton of money because of all the CGI, big name actors and marketing and stuff.

    But I recently saw "This means war" (yeah, I saw it - sue me) and "Wanderlust". The first one was a crap movie and I still don't know what made me sit through to the end, the second one was sorta ok.

    "This means war" cost $65 million (or so boxofficemojo tells me) and "Wanderlust" cost $35 million (at least that is what a quick google told me) - my question is Why? Neither movie had big special effects or elaborate sets.

    Can someone maybe name me a resource on Hollywood production? A book or something that explains the whole process and who is involved and where the money goes? Cause for the live of me I cannot figure out why the above movies for example couldn't have been made for half or a third of that budget.

    Sorry for disrupting any ongoing discussion - but this has been bugging me for a few days.

    TheBigEasy on
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    Big name stars eat up a lot of budget, as do the large crews that studio movies need, as do the tail of money-grubbing producers that lots of big name studios carry behind them.

    Adam Sandler movies cost untold fortunes to make and they're basically him and him in a dress or a funny hat and his mates.

  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    off the top of my head I'd suggest Peter Biskind's Easy Riders, Raging Bulls and Julia Phillips' You'll Never Eat Lunch in This Town Again

    oh, and Robert Evans' The Kid Stays in the Picture

    none of them is a rigorous accounting of production costs but you will nonetheless learn a lot about where the money goes.

    rRwz9.gif
  • TheBigEasyTheBigEasy Registered User regular
    Holy Fuck Bogart - you are right. "Jack and Jill" - Sandler's latest, cost $79 million and basically was him and him in a dress.

    Thanks Jacob, those are actually the kind of books I was looking for.

  • Casually HardcoreCasually Hardcore Once an Asshole. Trying to be better. Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    No Country for Old Men had an amazing ending.

    Just because the movie didn't end in a wedding, guy getting the girl while getting away from his crime, and everything is happy go lucky, doesn't make it a bad ending.

    No Country for Old Men had a perfect ending. It stayed true to mission statement.

    Anyways, Not Another Teen Movie turned out to be a pretty freaking good movie. Probably the best parody movie I've ever seen.

    Casually Hardcore on
  • MalReynoldsMalReynolds The Hunter S Thompson of incredibly mild medicines Registered User regular
    gjaustin wrote: »
    Just got home from seeing a midnight showing of Prometheus in IMAX. I'm definitely glad I went, as I really enjoyed. Easily my favorite movie so far this year.

    The 3D was well done. It wasn't intrusive, but added a subtle depth to the picture that made it feel more realistic. The set design, CGI, location scouting, or whatever was absolutely phenomenal. The entire movie was simultaneously beautiful and yet wrong. Fassbender was amazing as always and Theron, Rapace, and Elba fit well in their roles.

    Now for theories. First the obvious one that I suspect everyone else has figured out without even seeing the movie.
    I went in believing the ship from the trailer is the one from the beginning of Alien, and left believing the same. The Space Jockeys actually being more or less human was a big surprise though. I'm guessing I know what the Nephilim from Genesis are in the movie world...

    Now for my more personalized one, on "Why"
    I think that they were trying to terraform Earth and humans were an accident. And now they were ready to colonize...

    The only problem I see with the theory is that they helped out some ancient humans. But that's easily explained by political shifts, desire for a slave race, desire for pre-built infrastructure, or just a couple outcasts wanting to be worshiped as Gods.
    See, I was thinking that it was the same ship up until the space jockey got out of the pilot's seat and came after her. No space jockey in the seat, not the same ship, other problems with it being the same ship, no egg vats on board. I kind of feel like the movie was originally supposed to end when she was under the ship right as her suit told her she had two minutes of oxygen left. That would have been a nice ending with good closure. After it ended I was talking to a friend who had followed the media leading up to the release, and he said the was a direct quote from Ridley Scott in an interview where he said that it wasn't a true prequel, but more of a film that shared the "same DNA" as the original Alien, that was then going to branch off into its own universe.

    As for why they nurtured Earth, and created humans, I figure they wanted to use us as cattle, they needed us to harvest the Xenomorphs. Which is what I figure David was getting at with his "Sometimes to create life you have to destroy it first." line.

    Other things that bugged me about the movie:

    What the fuck was going on with the space jockey at the beginning of the movie? Why did he commit suicide by ingesting a bioweapon?

    Also I was incredibly disappointed that after everything she went through in the movie, Shaw, rather than piloting a ship chock full of bioweapon right into the heart of the Space Jockey's home planet, killing God so to speak, wanted to find out why Daddy was mad at us. Pretty disappointing IMHO.

    Not that I feel ripped off or anything, it was a fantastic movie, and I am eagerly awaiting further stories in this universe now that I know that's how Ridley Scott intends to play things.

    I took the guy at the beginning as being a rogue Jockey who stole from the others, came to Earth, and created life.

    "A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
    "Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
    My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
  • SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    TheBigEasy wrote: »
    Holy Fuck Bogart - you are right. "Jack and Jill" - Sandler's latest, cost $79 million and basically was him and him in a dress.

    Thanks Jacob, those are actually the kind of books I was looking for.

    There's a redlettermedia breakdown of how much bullshit this is. They estimate that about $60M of that is money for Sandler and friends. It's an insane moneygrab.

    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    TheBigEasy wrote: »
    Holy Fuck Bogart - you are right. "Jack and Jill" - Sandler's latest, cost $79 million and basically was him and him in a dress.

    Well, that particular case makes sense, because Adam Sandler collected one sizable salary, and then another went to Adam Sandler in a dress.

    Behold, the fruits of a film degree:

    In general, any large production is going to have five major cost areas.

    -Above-the-line salaries, which may include percentage points--these go to actors (the biggest stars can get tens of millions), producers (the kind who work hard as well as the kind who don't), and the key creative personnel, including the director, screenwriter(s), composer, lead editor, and cinematographer. They might be one-lump-sum or exorbitant weekly salaries.

    -Below-the-line salaries, which is everyone else, from the costumer on down to the best boys--several hundred people on a big shoot, and that's not counting extras. These are typically weekly salaries, standardized by unions. Film sets will often shoot long days and pay this group of people time and a half or double time to do it.

    -Pre-production costs, which may include buying the rights to material, pre-visualization/storyboarding/concept art, casting costs, hiring a dozen screenwriters one after the other to write and rewrite the script, rehearsal time with the actors, and various deal-makings.

    -Production costs, which include paying for locations, equipment (lights, camera, sound, etc), sets, props, costumes, makeup, craft services (food), trailers, housing for cast and crew if they're on location, vehicles on- and off-camera, FX materials, film if they're shooting on film, hard drives if they're not, etc. Since most of that stuff is rented, costs are by the day--and a typical big production is going to shoot anywhere from a month and a half to three months principal photography. (Then there's pick-ups, 2nd unit shoots, possible reshoots, etc.)

    -Post-production costs, which used to include expensive film processing but these days includes expensive digital processing instead. This also includes getting an orchestra to record the score, buying the rights to soundtracks, CG FX, editing equipment, sound design, Foley time, more food, and so on. This can also get expensive, because post is a lengthy process that may take a year and a half (if you have a lot of FX work, or are Terence Malick) and still come down to the wire (there's the overtime again) when work butts up against distribution deadlines, which is often.

    And that's only production--generally not included in budgets are the distribution costs (a major release is going to spend millions just making prints and shipping them to 3000+ screens) and marketing costs (which can often be as much as production costs over again--think $150-200 million for a global full-court press).

    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • gjaustingjaustin Registered User regular
    gjaustin wrote: »
    Just got home from seeing a midnight showing of Prometheus in IMAX. I'm definitely glad I went, as I really enjoyed. Easily my favorite movie so far this year.

    The 3D was well done. It wasn't intrusive, but added a subtle depth to the picture that made it feel more realistic. The set design, CGI, location scouting, or whatever was absolutely phenomenal. The entire movie was simultaneously beautiful and yet wrong. Fassbender was amazing as always and Theron, Rapace, and Elba fit well in their roles.

    Now for theories. First the obvious one that I suspect everyone else has figured out without even seeing the movie.
    I went in believing the ship from the trailer is the one from the beginning of Alien, and left believing the same. The Space Jockeys actually being more or less human was a big surprise though. I'm guessing I know what the Nephilim from Genesis are in the movie world...

    Now for my more personalized one, on "Why"
    I think that they were trying to terraform Earth and humans were an accident. And now they were ready to colonize...

    The only problem I see with the theory is that they helped out some ancient humans. But that's easily explained by political shifts, desire for a slave race, desire for pre-built infrastructure, or just a couple outcasts wanting to be worshiped as Gods.
    See, I was thinking that it was the same ship up until the space jockey got out of the pilot's seat and came after her. No space jockey in the seat, not the same ship, other problems with it being the same ship, no egg vats on board. I kind of feel like the movie was originally supposed to end when she was under the ship right as her suit told her she had two minutes of oxygen left. That would have been a nice ending with good closure. After it ended I was talking to a friend who had followed the media leading up to the release, and he said the was a direct quote from Ridley Scott in an interview where he said that it wasn't a true prequel, but more of a film that shared the "same DNA" as the original Alien, that was then going to branch off into its own universe.

    As for why they nurtured Earth, and created humans, I figure they wanted to use us as cattle, they needed us to harvest the Xenomorphs. Which is what I figure David was getting at with his "Sometimes to create life you have to destroy it first." line.

    Other things that bugged me about the movie:

    What the fuck was going on with the space jockey at the beginning of the movie? Why did he commit suicide by ingesting a bioweapon?

    Also I was incredibly disappointed that after everything she went through in the movie, Shaw, rather than piloting a ship chock full of bioweapon right into the heart of the Space Jockey's home planet, killing God so to speak, wanted to find out why Daddy was mad at us. Pretty disappointing IMHO.

    Not that I feel ripped off or anything, it was a fantastic movie, and I am eagerly awaiting further stories in this universe now that I know that's how Ridley Scott intends to play things.

    Hmm, those are good points.
    I also expected the movie to end while she was trapped, but I was actually pleased that she escaped.

    As for the ship, the alien would only need to get onboard in there and lay eggs. I guess that comes down to how much it's a prequel, how much a reboot, and how much a reimagining.

    As for the Space Jockey, it seemed to me that he drew the short straw. It was his job to seed the planet with their DNA.

  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    Ghostbusters is slightly more episodic than it really should be, and the effects are a little dated these days, but otherwise, yes, it's pretty perfect.

    Which reminds me, Ross's list is also missing Groundhog Day, which is just as perfect but significantly deeper.

    It's on my other list. My primary list is for big expansive cinematic experiences whose plotting and editing are tight as a pressed drum.

    But as far as smaller films or lighter films go, Groundhog Day is more or less perfect, which is why it was on my second list in that post with all the other smaller films I consider perfect.



    @Bogart - Tinker Tailer probably deserves a spot on that first list. The list isn't definitive, and is always growing.

  • ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    It's definitely a Hollywood-centric list, but as that it's a good one. I'd put additional films on there (e.g. Seven Samurai or Jules et Jim - not original mentions, but classics for a reason), but that doesn't change that the films on there are at the top of the game in achieving brilliantly what they set out to do.

    On the Indiana Jones thing: to my mind, the films are iconic, especially Raiders. Having a reboot that basically does the same with a different, younger actor would lose a lot of this iconic element;* and I fail to see what a reboot along the lines of Battlestar Galactica could do that would benefit from it explicitly being an Indiana Jones film rather than a critical take on the genre and style.


    *I could imagine that people felt the same way about the first Roger Moore Bond films, mind you.

    Thirith on
    webp-net-resizeimage.jpg
    "Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    I'd put "The Philadelphia Story" on the list of lighter movies.

  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    If I may, there's a few movies I consider "perfect" that aren't on your list, and I'd be curious as to what you think would disqualify them from being on a perfect list.

    Groundhog Day
    Airplane
    Brazil
    The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    The Blues Brothers
    Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang
    EDIT: Die Hard


    - I've already addressed Groundhog Day.
    - Airplane! I'd throw out because it's just not funny anymore. Seriously. It's a terribly dated film, and all it's gag are puns, slapstick, or stereotypes.
    - Brazil is very good, very very good, but it gets muddled towards the end and starts to run on too long. Definitely an "A" level film, but not perfect (for me).
    - Good, Bad, and the Ugly is also way too long. There's a lot of memorable iconography in that film, but at 3 hours it starts to numb the ass a little. Also, all the Italians playing Mexicans are doing a pretty bad job at it, and the film is brain-dead about historical accuracy.
    - The Blues Brothers is not a great comedy. There. I said it. It's pleasant enough, but it's too long and to infrequent with the funny, and it's a shameless paean to blues music (for real, there's like a dozen musical numbers in the film) made by two white guys (one from Canada).
    - Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang? I hear it. It might be perfect. It's pretty great.
    - Die Hard is a perfect action film and the template for the genre for years. I don't know if it's good enough "film" to stand beside something like Chinatown, though.

  • Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    My perfect film is A Chrsitmas Story. It's certainly not the best movie ever but there is literally nothing about it I would want to see changed after I watch it.

    Magic Pink on
  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    Thirith wrote: »
    *I could imagine that people felt the same way about the first Roger Moore Bond films, mind you.

    They probably did, but as I argued earlier, franchises like James Bond and whathaveyou are being adapted from a source material anyway, so there's no true one interpretation.

    Indiana Jones is whole-cloth, and that whole-cloth is made of Harrison Ford and Steven Spielberg.

  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    I hate A Christmas Story. I hate everything about it, and all copies of it should be burned forever. HATE.

  • ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    - Die Hard is a perfect action film and the template for the genre for years. I don't know if it's good enough "film" to stand beside something like Chinatown, though.
    To my mind it's the action film equivalent of, say, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Empire Strikes Back. In terms of doing what it sets out to do pretty much perfectly, it succeeds amazingly well. (I don't even mind Johnson and Johnson, although I understand that some people do.)

    webp-net-resizeimage.jpg
    "Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
  • Brian888Brian888 Registered User regular
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    My perfect film is A Chrsitmas Story. It's certainly not the best movie ever but there is literally nothing about it I would want to see changed after I watch it.

    Yeah, I can see that.

    One of my "perfect" movies, and it's certainly a guilty pleasure, is Wild Things. It's not great art, but for the lurid south Florida sleaze-noir story it's trying to tell, it hits the mark perfectly.

  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    Thirith wrote: »
    - Die Hard is a perfect action film and the template for the genre for years. I don't know if it's good enough "film" to stand beside something like Chinatown, though.
    To my mind it's the action film equivalent of, say, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Empire Strikes Back. In terms of doing what it sets out to do pretty much perfectly, it succeeds amazingly well. (I don't even mind Johnson and Johnson, although I understand that some people do.)

    I would disqualify it for its dated dialogue, reliance upon characters who are flamboyant stereotypes, and general lack of gravitas.


    But that's just me. I still think it's a very good film.

  • Delta AssaultDelta Assault Registered User regular
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    My perfect film is A Chrsitmas Story. It's certainly not the best movie ever but there is literally nothing about it I would want to see changed after I watch it.

    Couldn't agree more.

    Another perfect movie along those lines is Stand By Me.

  • ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    @Atomic Ross: What about non-American films of the Bergman, Truffaut, Malle, Kurosawa etc. kind? Are they simply not on your radar much, or do you like them less? I don't seem to remember you talking much about non-American films (or at least films that aren't in English).


    Edit: At some point I have to try to get the hang of this @<user name> thing...

    Thirith on
    webp-net-resizeimage.jpg
    "Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    Thirith wrote: »
    @Atomic Ross: What about non-American films of the Bergman, Truffaut, Malle, Kurosawa etc. kind? Are they simply not on your radar much, or do you like them less? I don't seem to remember you talking much about non-American films (or at least films that aren't in English).


    Edit: At some point I have to try to get the hang of this @<user name> thing...

    It's probably a combination of limited exposure (in the US, if you want to watch foreign films not called Harry Potter, you have do some digging) and simply a lot of it not being my interest. I've talked about it here before, but I feel that there's a good deal of nuance that's lost between cultures any time you observe a foreign product, and the greater your cultural gap from that product, the more likely you are to fail to fully comprehend what the project is trying to say.

    As an American, the drift on my scope of assured reference goes: America, Canada, the Caribbean, the UK, Ireland, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, South America, Middle East, Far East.

    Each next step takes my understanding more and more away, so I feel less assured in my criticisms and understanding of films from those areas.

  • Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    Houn wrote: »
    I hate A Christmas Story. I hate everything about it, and all copies of it should be burned forever. HATE.

    coal in yr stocking 4ever yo

  • Form of Monkey!Form of Monkey! Registered User regular
    Speaking of Bill Murray films, The Man Who Knew Too Little is a very underappreciated film. It's very succinct and clear in its goals. And it achieves them all, anchored by a great cast who all play it straight.

    Watch me effortlessly refute a lot of the dumb critiques leveled at it on its RT page:
    "A one-joke comedy that wants to carry the absurdity of its premise throughout the entire plot."

    This is how premises in comedies usually work! Even Ghostbusters posits an absurd reality where ghosts and giant mashmellow men exist, and only the silliest of geese would dare mutter "Ghostbusters, really??" Some people cannot be entertained, they refuse to go along for the ride.

    Here's another one:
    "This is the kind of thing Murray and Amiel could do in their sleep. So they do."

    This is a pretty dumb statement too. Yes, it is indeed a high crime when comedic actors perform in roles well-suited to their abilities, making their performances seem effortless and organic in the process. I can't even tell you how angry I get when comedians act in comedies. What the fuck are they trying to pull??


    My initial thesis was that it is a very underappreciated film, but I might even go so far as to say that it's also misunderstood or needlessly / ineptly ridiculed as well.

    What can I say, I appreciate this film.

  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    I hate A Christmas Story. I hate everything about it, and all copies of it should be burned forever. HATE.

    coal in yr stocking 4ever yo

    I dunno what it is about it, but everything about that movie offends me on a deep personal level. I think it's a slice of Americana that feels fabricated and ingenuine, a glorification of people and behavior that I find reprehensible. I spend the entire movie just praying that someone, anyone would drop an a-bomb on their town, rendering their family truly nuclear.

  • Double_ChrisDouble_Chris Registered User regular
    All these top 10 lists are making me want to post one, so here's my Top 10 movies according to my Flickchart account:
    1. Akira
    2. The Godfather
    3. Back to the Future
    4. Brazil
    5. 2001: A Space Odyssey
    6. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    7. Reservoir Dogs
    8. Life of Brian
    9. Blade Runner
    10. Shaun of the Dead

    We are human, after all. Flesh Uncovered, after all.
  • Delta AssaultDelta Assault Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    Mine is pretty different from you guys.
    1. The Dark Knight
    2. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
    3. The Rock
    4. Aliens
    5. Superman
    6. The Matrix
    7. Stand By Me
    8. Predator
    9. Terminator 2: Judgment Day
    10. Excalibur

    Delta Assault on
  • Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    Houn wrote: »
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    I hate A Christmas Story. I hate everything about it, and all copies of it should be burned forever. HATE.

    coal in yr stocking 4ever yo

    I dunno what it is about it, but everything about that movie offends me on a deep personal level. I think it's a slice of Americana that feels fabricated and ingenuine, a glorification of people and behavior that I find reprehensible. I spend the entire movie just praying that someone, anyone would drop an a-bomb on their town, rendering their family truly nuclear.

    I don'y know; I can't see them as glorifying anything because literally no one is portrayed in a positive light. The film is pretty much full of weirdos and assholes, just like real life. The kids act like little selfish kids. The grownups act like they're the instruments of oppression they were brought up by. It's a slice of Americana, true, but it doesn't try to say Americana was ever good and sweet and nice.

  • HeisenbergHeisenberg Registered User regular
    Can we please label the Prometheus spoilers

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Houn wrote: »
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    I hate A Christmas Story. I hate everything about it, and all copies of it should be burned forever. HATE.

    coal in yr stocking 4ever yo

    I dunno what it is about it, but everything about that movie offends me on a deep personal level. I think it's a slice of Americana that feels fabricated and ingenuine, a glorification of people and behavior that I find reprehensible. I spend the entire movie just praying that someone, anyone would drop an a-bomb on their town, rendering their family truly nuclear.

    Thank god someone else who hates this stupid fucking movie. I have never understood whats good about it other than it eventually god damn ends.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Delta AssaultDelta Assault Registered User regular
    You guys just have no souls.

This discussion has been closed.