Posts by northerncrane4

crimsonmoose3 said:It’s pure entertainment watching them tear down that proud American Inc.

Personally, I get more satisfaction out of watching kids trembling in mortal danger—Steven Spielberg knows exactly what he's doing.

Which would you prefer: someone forcefully kissing you on the mouth—or just dealing with diarrhea instead?

rapidbison42 said:Now we just wait for V for Vendetta... let's see how they handle it..
Please... it's Hollywood—they'll butcher the comic just like they did with Constantine.
Hugo Weaving as V... we'll see about that...

Prepare for the worst. Forget the idea that it isn't Hollywood—it definitely is. And as for "Hugo Weaving as V"? Doesn't matter. They could cast Frano Lasić and just dub him over for all I care. 😎

ironcrane7 said:When the Wind Blows.

👍 Yeah, he really is top-tier.

Is Yor - the hunter of the future?

brighthawk20 said:I had two goals in life—becoming a fighter pilot or making movies. I wanted to be the next Quentin Tarantino or Steven Spielberg.

Since when does Tarantino fly jets? 😲

Can you believe this guy?

analoggardener52 said:I was speaking regarding the actual thesis here.

So—which category do you fall under?

pickle said:I heard you can just wing it on the comparative section—pretty much the same way you do with the SAT... 🙄

Not even close. To pass the comparative, you actually need to know what you're doing.

Karen Diaz32 said:- You can never admit you’ve actually worked on a professional or semi-professional set—if you have. You’re just raw flour waiting for them to knead you into dough. Showing up already formed—even partially—is a mistake.

- Don't walk in with a rigid viewpoint. That's their job—to give you one.

Those two points are vital when talking to an admissions committee. The safest bet? Drop something blasphemous and loud—something like, "The poetics of John Ford are totally obsolete." Then, wait for them to snap back: "Now, hold on there, colleague, he laid the very foundation we all stand on today." At that point, you just scatter some ash over yourself and say: "Actually, looking at it that way, I see how incredibly wrong I was." They love that. Suddenly, you're one of them.

bluebison8 said:Mel Gibson is hands down one of the best actors and directors working today.
He’s easily in my top 5—no question about it.

You might have to lend me that doubt-meter of yours—just for a day—so I can check its dimensions.

William Morris2 said:Movie quotes are 👍 👍 😂 :

"Why did the chicken cross the road? Because his dick was stuck in a chicken!"

-----------------------------------------------------
"You're nobody!" "Shhh don't tell anyone"

This film has some of the most intense one-liners since the golden age of screwball comedies.

"I'm not your fucking son."🙏

My favorite villain line ever—when Corleone talks about Halle Berry being the hottest girl he's ever been with, and Matt Damon snaps back: "There’s two feet of marble between us. I might make it, I might not. Call her that again and we'll see!" And Corleone, totally unfazed: "Jimmy... Jimmy! Do what you gonna do!" 😁 😁 😁

Yeah, he directed it.

But I know how you're going to tip off your buddy. Just write "Damir Poša" on his forehead and tell him it’s an American singer-songwriter. That should get him guessing all the way to Milodarev.

Undertow said:A masterpiece, huh? 😲 I have to disagree—in my opinion, it’s easily his worst work. 😉

Let’s not forget Popeye, either.

nimblemarlin17 said:The list is about the 100 most important films, not necessarily the best ones.

Important for what purpose?
That’s my favorite move—when they don't have the guts to say "best," so they resort to these vague qualifiers like "most important," "most impactful," or "most significant."

Noah Watson4 said:ready-to-wear is a masterpiece!? 😲 I hate to break it to you—but in my opinion, that's easily his worst work. 😉

Word is that this latest ballet one is even worse.

Jason Chavez32 said:watched it on ABC last night—a total masterpiece by Robert Altman.

PURE GENIUS.

Thank God for the old VCR.

Paul Mendoza8 said:Is that for real? I don't want to get my hopes up—I saw a random issue at the newsstand with Darth Vader on the cover, so I'm assuming it's a newer edition.

What you saw was likely an import from England. See, Paramount Pictures—much like Playboy, Cosmopolitan, Elle, or Men's Health—operates on a licensing model.

Douglas Robinson12 said:If you actually gave me "final enlightenment," maybe I'd give you something in return.

That’s what I call a fair deal.

Douglas Robinson12 said:I'm just looking for an explanation of your views using specific examples from this film. I usually enjoy taking lessons from movies.

For that, we’d need to sit side-by-side, pop a DVD into the player, and analyze them one by one. We aren't going to do that.

Douglas Robinson12 said:By the way, the flow of life isn't usually random—and that certainly isn't the case with the structure of a rondo.

The course of someone else's life is often surprising and unpredictable to an uninitiated viewer—especially if the subject is someone like the protagonist in an Anderson film. And even more so if the viewer lacks the basic need to understand that other people live lives fundamentally different from their own.
A rondo, conversely, is perfectly recognizable and easy to define for a viewer who knows what a rondo is.
So, if a director draws inspiration from the flow of life, they'll make a film where character motivations and cause-and-effect sequences won't be entirely clear. You might call those characters caricatures. But are Željko Malnar and his crew caricatures simply because they aren't like us? Not that I'm saying Željko Malnar and his group are equivalent to Steve Zissou's crew.
If, however, the director is inspired by the rondo structure, they'll make a film that adheres to that musical form.
I really don't know if I can be any clearer.

Douglas Robinson12 said:Since you have nothing to offer, or perhaps you just don't feel like doing it, let's agree to disagree.

🙄 And I was the one who suggested it.

Douglas Robinson12 said:Either way, you won't be giving me anything for the explanation I'm asking for.

You get what you pay for. Except in this case, there was enough music for a double CD.

Look, I’ve said everything there is to say—I've laid it all out. Clearly, you're just refusing to accept it. So, go ahead and keep repeating yourself if that makes it feel less concrete to you. To me, it's perfectly clear.

What is it you're actually looking for from me? Some sort of ultimate epiphany? Fine. But what are you offering in return?

Douglas Robinson12 said:What exactly is inherent to the structure of Life Aquatica—what makes it unique compared to any other film—that reminds you of the flow of life? Please provide specific examples from the movie. Which scenes (since you're touching on plot, not just structure) deviate from standard dramatic patterns, and why does that matter for the characters at the heart of Anderson's film? Is Anderson actually original regarding dramatic structures, or is this all just stylistic "show off"? Does he break linearity—cause and effect—through any cinematic elements that actually reveal something about the story or the people involved? What specifically exists in the structure of rondo (and rondo), and where do you see that reflected in Life Aquatic? I need concrete examples.

If you believe a film's structure mirrors the flow of life, then you're essentially arguing that the film itself is connected to life. Beyond that, you aren't just discussing structure—you're drifting into specific scenes, which is plot.

And there it is—all these (always the same) questions just prove you still don't get what I'm saying. And I actually put in the effort here. A shame.