Posts by northerncrane4

Douglas Phillips4 said:—you can't talk about cinema without talking about politics🙄 👎

Where is this world heading?

Emily Torres2 said:3) William Calley— tall-ish (?), looks like a movie star, dark hair, broken English.

Whose standards are we talking about here? Some Hobbit's?

Studio 54 said:An actor's job is to make me weep, laugh, feel passion, or fear...

Me? Just give me a dentist.

poirot said:Does it itch, you little commie? Does it bother you that an American actually succeeds?

American jealousy strikes again!

Since when was George Clooney American?

unknown said:The taxation of animals is particularly idiotic—deer antlers, horse anatomy, elephant anatomy, and so on.

There’s actually a clip on a movie DVD featuring Tom Green visiting a talk show; the host asks what he's carrying in that bag, and Green pulls out a dead raccoon, slams it on the table in front of her, and starts shaving it with an electric razor.

glupinickname said:It’s hardly surprising the movie played at 2 AM—they probably realized nobody actually wanted to sit through it.

Smallville and Puppy Love were scheduled for similar late-night slots recently. Likely for the exact same reason.

frozenpuma47 said:Two kings either way—that’s what you'd hear from the only true acting titans left—but those legends...👍

And Robert Duvall? Or Gene Hackman? Just thrown out there after a split second of thought.

Why is everyone so obsessed with these sweeping, overblown generalizations?

stormyviper11 said:"Washington National Cathedral" is easily one of the most entertaining—maybe even the best—domestic films from the last fifteen years

Look, I wouldn't know—since I stopped watching right when some DC intellectual, interpreting Sven Medvešek BBB, gets cornered in his apartment by a guy waving a knife in his face and says: "You're waving that knife just like Leone with his scissors."

some idiot said:they should have a kid with Boris Miholjević

Now that would be interesting—that child would be both an aunt/uncle and a sibling to the youngest kid in the family at once, and Boris Miholjević would end up being his own daughter's stepdad.

What is a director without a negative copy?

Jeremy Bishop5 said:Which kind? Diarrhea or solid? 😂 😂

What do you think? I didn't exactly write: CHEW! 😎

Laura Evans3 said:🤣 🤣 😂 😂 🤣 🤣 😂 😂

Why are you laughing? SHUT IT! 😉

slywolf9 said:Fine, I'm glad I (for now) came out on top regarding WotW—but honestly, this whole debate is pointless and stupid. Both movies are garbage.

What exactly did I write back on the first page of this thread?

quietdriver3 said:Those subplots you spot in his movies are nothing more than little vehicles used to move the main plot from point A to point B—wouldn't those films be a bit unwatchable if they were just pure action scenes and characters serving no purpose other than filling out the set? (Maybe a documentary approach would work, but that’s getting into experimental territory). Aren't those "deeper themes" just an excuse for the necessary filler—in all aspects of life, including movies meant for entertainment, adrenaline, and spectacle?

I just don't see how Spielberg's vehicles differ from Emmerich's.

quietdriver3 said:Does every single movie need to be a dramatic masterpiece with perfectly polished characters just to be considered good?😕

Is, for example, Evil Death II a good movie?😕

You’ve really gone out of your way to misunderstand everything I said. No—a film doesn't need to be some dramatic tour de force with flawless character arcs to be good. In fact, it’s incredibly grating when a director decides to focus on "deep" character motivations at the exact moment they should be running for their lives from rampaging dinosaurs/Nazis/aliens/time anomalies/zombie hordes/genetically modified eggplants—simply because they have this desperate need to be viewed as an "artist." And those supposedly "deep" motivations usually end up being about as profound as a copy of "Psychology for Beginners" published by Jesenski Publishing or Turk.

quietdriver3 said:[For instance, when I went to see Jurassic Park, I was expecting some deep dive where dinosaurs serve as an allegory for a retiree's psyche—instead, the whole park is actually just a cleverly packaged Bergmanesque analogy for a nursing home and the grim realities of aging (think: dealing with incontinence, finding the best brand for artificial hips, or whether hearing aids are even worth the hype). Instead, what I got was just a well-directed, fun action flick. 👎

What exactly were you looking for when you sat down for "Schindler's List," "The Birdcage," "Amistad," "A.I.," "Catch Me If You Can," "The Color Purple," "Always," or "Terminal"? Or maybe you were hunting for that primal father-son connection in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade"? The chemistry between ex-spouses in "Jurassic Park"? That trope of viewing the "adult world" through the eyes of innocent children that shows up in every other movie?

If so—fine. To me, that's just pathetic.

Eric Jackson43 said:In what sense—layman's terms?

The characterization is pure cliché—their relationship dynamics and how they react to the situation lack even a shred of originality—yet it tries to pass itself off as some profound insight into the human psyche and interpersonal connections.

Eric Jackson43 said:For me, it’s more insulting having to sit through Will Smith's overacting in ID—like those five minutes of nothing but zoomed-in shots of his facial expressions when he first spots the flying saucer.

I’d appreciate it if someone noticed I haven't uttered a single positive word about this movie.

Eric Jackson43 said:😂
They probably are—but certainly not in those quantities.

The entire episode was dedicated to her.

Eric Jackson43 said:Look, I honestly don't know if Spielberg's movies hold up from a technical standpoint, but unlike most other Hollywood productions, Spielberg's films stay with me as something truly moving.

Fair enough. Personally, I find them repulsive—mostly because I despise the manipulative way they try to win the audience over.

Eric Jackson43 said:They weren't always garbage—look at those early South Park episodes where they mocked Independence Day. Seriously, go rent the movie and actually watch it properly.

Fortunately, when you factor in Steven Spielberg, they aren't.

quietdriver3 said:So, does he have some ghost director behind those "genius" films of his? Is that the deal?

No. Steven Spielberg doesn't have a single genius film to his name—but then again, that's just my pissed-off opinion.

quietdriver3 said:He managed to hit on a few good ones, though, right?

Give Harold Ramis a break, too.

quietdriver3 said:I'm just thrilled to be part of such a smart, cool crowd alongside people like northerncrane4, isn't that great?

Who invited you?

quietdriver3 said:We all know the drill—we discovered the film, we're the gods of celluloid, we're lovers of the mathematical-logarithmic approach to filmmaking... I mean, heaven forbid someone frames a shot wrong (since some book by Dušan Stojanović or Ante Peterlić says you aren't allowed to).

Everything you're describing is the definition of Steven Spielberg and his crew. Craft—5/10. Inspiration—2/10. Every frame is technically perfect, but you'll never find that certain "something extra." But you don't get it yet. It's fine—the average lifespan is about 73 anyway, so there's still time.

fadedsailor932 said:..and how does it differ from War of the Worlds😕

How do you not get it? It’s because Steven Spielberg is a genius—and he’s a genius because he writes in the papers that he is.