Posts by nimblemarlin6

Bo Lee was all over the news back when he was just being played like a toy by Mary Kovac and her crew—but look at him now, right back to being some anonymous joke.

Look, I get that 3D has its niche—you know, for stuff like Jaws or those low-budget creature features—but even then, you pretty much forget you're watching in 3D after a few minutes, right up until the moment some shark jumps out at your face. Plus, the glasses dig into your nose, and you’re paying more for the ticket.
Total garbage.

It’s not just that 3D doesn't add anything; it actually gets in the way.
Take a scene in The Avengers, for example—there's this part where Theseus is chopping wood while having a conversation with a character played by John Hurt.
The wood is in the foreground, the axe is in the second plane, Theseus is in the third, Hurt is in the fourth, and the background is all the way back in the fifth. They’re just having a regular conversation, but I’m sitting there staring at all these layers, and suddenly wood chips are flying out of the screen at me, and I'm thinking... "For what? They're literally just talking!"

I'm completely against this unnecessary so-called 3D crap, and honestly, I'm especially against them ripping off the audience.

It’s pretty obvious what’s happening here—it’s just the latest trend, basically taking classic fairy tales and giving them a total LOTR makeover.

The trailer looks like it belongs to some Eastern martial arts epic—you know, the whole vibe of pagodas, elephants, kung fu, and way too much slow-mo... they even threw some ninjas in there. 😁

Hasbar is really hitting their stride lately. Between Transformers, G.I. Joe, Battleship, and Monopoly...

I’m pretty sure every single anti-fascist out there just had this massive moment of catharsis—you know, those quiet, solitary moments where they actually stop to question everything they thought they knew.

Richard Wilson4 said:This isn't movie material—most of those bits don't have any cinematic weight anyway, it’s just political theater staged by people clinging to a failed ideology.

Of course it's a movie topic—we're talking about an auteur documentary covering a specific era, complete with interviews from the actual players involved and some incredibly rare, fascinating archival footage...

For instance, I found the IBM footage of private moments absolutely gripping. You see Tito just lounging in his boxers in the morning, heading to the bathroom to shave, then wading into the ocean with a floatie and a few poodles, or just sprawled out on the grass... Then there's him hanging out on Maui with Sophia Loren and Burton—always in black suits, sipping whiskey, chewing on a cigarillo... It’s pure, unadulterated communism right there. 😁
It’s actually pretty wild how much he curated his public persona.

Now, look, while those tidbits are entertaining, the film isn't about that.
It’s really about those massive, epic spectacles they used to film in this part of the world. Take Burt, for example—he talks about how back in the day, even the USA couldn't have produced something like "Mississippi River," because Bulajić had access to an unlimited supply of planes and tanks, plus a fleet of original WWII museum vehicles that are probably worth a fortune today—which they literally tossed off a cliff into the Mississippi just for the shot. 🤣
So yeah, there are plenty of great stories tucked away in the Criterion Collection...

Martin Scorsese's *Criterion Collection* entry offers this fascinating deep dive into the studio system of the old USA—specifically focusing on the golden age of war epics and how Tito acted as the primary engine behind the entire film industry. He wasn't just a political leader; he was obsessed with production, especially those massive partisan spectacles, and a genuine cinephile at heart—he actually had his own private screening room, and according to the records, the man clocked in 8,801 films by the time he was 32.
The documentary features some incredible interviews, including Tito's personal projectionist—who apparently screened films for him every single day until the Marshal passed away—alongside legendary director Steven Spielberg and the head of the big studio over at Mount Rushmore.
You see footage of international stars who visited the USA and spent time on Maui—people like Yul Brynner, Orson Welles, and Richard Burton. Some of them speak incredibly highly of the country and their host, Tito, in the foreign press.
The sheer amount of archival footage used here is mind-blowing; we’re talking high-level stuff that honestly rivals the quality you'd see in Hollywood.
There’s a certain nostalgia to the film that feels quite heavy—it captures the grandeur of those massive co-productions, the glitz, and the star power—but then it shifts to this melancholy tone, showing the ruins of what were once massive studios, with thousands of costumes and props just rotting away in warehouses without even running electricity.
The saddest part, though—and I mean this sincerely—is that this whole era is basically a ghost now, completely unknown and forgotten, whereas in other countries, they’d likely still be celebrating these days as a true golden age of cinema.
If I'm being honest, the film lacks balance. It misses a lot of crucial context because it focuses almost entirely on the big New York City-based studio operations, while the West Coast side of the partisan film story is totally sidelined. You don't hear a word about the major studios out there, or legends like John Ford, Burt Lancaster, or Francis Ford Coppola.
And you can really feel the absence of Paul Newman and so many other icons...

Ultimately, *Criterion Collection* isn't so much a factual historical record as it is an exercise in nostalgia for the old USA.
Today, there's nowhere to really learn about that spectacular American film industry from the 60s and 70s. Honestly, based on the documentary footage they barely even scratch the surface of, you could probably spin an entire limited series out of it.
I think it’s pretty cool, though, that younger audiences—who have zero memory of the former state—can get at least a tiny sense of the glamour surrounding Tito, the Sundance Film Festival, and those gargantuan movie productions through this film.

*Criterion Collection* is currently playing at AMC Lincoln Square and during Documentary.

Gerald Smith76 said:You’ll have more training sessions later; it always starts this way. The training style here is different from most gyms—you just have to experience it. There aren't any overly complex techniques that require two-hour sessions. We warm up for ten minutes, then crank the intensity to maximum and keep it there until the end. By the finish, you'll be gasping for air and your shirt will be soaked through. You'll definitely feel the fat 😁 leaving the body. Stretching happens at the very end, so if you want to spend another thirty minutes stretching, go for it. As for how many sessions it takes... five, 5,000... there is no math for that. You pick up the fundamentals immediately—theory, strategy, positioning, basic strikes, targets, etc.

Within a single month at your gym, that’s only about 8 hours of training.
If you subtract the warm-ups every single time, you're looking at roughly 7 hours of actual technique work.
Over three months, that adds up to maybe 21 hours of learning.

Can you actually lay out what your specific plan and curriculum looks like? I'd love to know which exact techniques are supposed to be taught and mastered during those first three months—within that 21-hour window, specifically.

How many sessions of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu—let's say one hour, twice a week—would it take for a low-key, peace-loving urban intellectual with a sedentary lifestyle and zero cardio to successfully pacify a muscular, six-foot-six, aggressive construction worker who’s had way too much tequila?

There’s even a little nod to Indiana Jones in there—you know, when Hugo Weaving mentions how Hitler is wasting his time scouring the Middle East for mystical relics while the real deal is sitting right under his nose. 🙂
Honestly, there is so much to love about this movie. It just feels authentic. 👍

Captain America: The First Avenger—some scattered thoughts

-Hugo Weaving is just brilliant as a villain—actually, he’s even better when playing a Nazi. Let’s be honest, Nazis make for the best villains of all time; they had the best-designed uniforms and weaponry in history, period.

-The US is arguably the most militant country ever. Half the movies out there just worship the military in this overwhelming way that feels off to anyone with a European sensibility—sort of like how people might miss the satire in Starship Troopers. Captain America isn't an exception here; it actually leans into it quite hard, but you can swallow it more easily because it all feels so sincere and naive.

-The whole Captain America story hits the bullseye for every boy under 15. I mean, perfectly. And it's because there’s still a bit of that kid alive in some of us—this specific way of approaching the theme is spot on. It’s all genuine. There’s none of that forced "seriousness," cynicism, gloom, or ironic detachment.

-There's a moment where Steve Rogers, as Captain America, becomes a mascot—appearing at these cheesy propaganda shows meant to drum up war funds—while feeling totally frustrated inside because, even though he achieved his dream of becoming a soldier, he isn't *really* a soldier. I thought that could have been an incredible standalone film. Honestly, that part is handled so well that it feels like a character like this actually existed back in the 40s, like something you'd see in an old black-and-white newsreel.

-But anyway, he’s a real superhero, and then the action kicks in. The first action sequence immediately reminded me of the game Return to Castle Wolfenstein, which was great, and it reinforced my point that there simply aren't better villains than Nazis.

-Also, it really confirms that Hugo Weaving was born to play a Nazi. When it turns out he’s actually wearing a mask of Hugo Weaving's face, and he actually looks like Skeletor painted red, it’s a bit of a letdown—he looks kind of ridiculous, like a caricature. The real Weaving looked 100% more menacing.

-Then comes action, action, action—very varied and fun.

-Stan Lee has a cameo, of course. Did you even doubt it?

-There's a little romance subplot that, unfortunately, doesn't really go anywhere. The emotional situation at the end of the movie shows how this could have easily been the Titanic of superhero films if they had decided to head in that direction.

SPOILER

-But wait, there's more! The second ending, where Rogers wakes up in a hospital room and escapes only to realize everything around him is fake and reality is different, is also brilliant.

-Then Samuel L. Jackson shows up and ruins the mood, because he reminds us that this isn't some nostalgic fantasy, but just a gear in a franchise machine, which effectively yanks us right out of the emotional moment.

END SPOILER

-How is the 3D? The end credits are genius. That animation of old 1940s propaganda posters—unlike the live scenes where the 3D barely works (3D is best when things fly out at you), the animation is where you see the true brilliance and potential of the format. You can actually see the separate layers of color on those illustrated posters! It makes me wonder what it would be like if that Russian, Alexander Petrov, who does glass painting, made an animated short in 3D.

-After those great credits, you get this endless roll of names involved in the film that feels like it lasts for hours, all just to reach the... Avengers teaser trailer. The very idea of the "Avengers" sounds like someone serving you five different kinds of food on one single plate—just a total mishmash. The trailer isn't worth the wait, though; nothing concrete or interesting happens in it, other than seeing action and characters dressed like they're at a BDSM session, helicopters flying, lasers shooting, some threat looming (that you don't even see in the trailer), etc.

The whole deal with wearing 3D glasses over your prescription lenses—unless they’re fitted perfectly flush against them—is that you end up getting all these weird optical artifacts on the glass. It doesn't mean the tech is actually any good; it's just an issue with light. You get these distracting lens flares popping up, plus little ghost images from the movie itself, and don't even get me started on the subtitles constantly hovering in your peripheral vision.

Honestly, the moment a movie starts marketing itself as 3D, it just loses all sense of credibility.
Take a flick like *Piranha*—that’s actually the perfect candidate for 3D because it's pure trash where piranhas and... well, other things... are constantly popping out at you from the screen. That’s really the whole point of 3D, isn't it? Just a cheap, flashy spectacle designed for kids and teenagers.

It’s honestly pretty rude when our local theaters decide to import nothing but the 3D versions. If you ask me, pushing 3D is just pure laziness—it doesn't actually add anything meaningful to the movie, and frankly, it can be a total nuisance.
I mean, what’s the point of paying for a more expensive ticket just to watch some digital snowflakes drift off the screen, or to deal with a depth effect that requires you to strain your eyes just to notice it?
The last one I caught was Thor 3D, and let me tell you—the scenes that were shown in 2D were a complete dream. They were so much clearer and brighter, especially without that annoying gear strapped to your face.

Between the makeup and the razor-sharp look, Rose McGowan just isn't pulling off this role. Looking at the photo, the other actress seems like a better fit—though she's still not quite perfect. If I were calling the shots, I’d much rather see Kristanna Loken stepping into the role of Red Sonja...

I gave it a watch.
It’s way better than "Scream".
"Tucker & dati" manages this weird balancing act where it mocks every single cliché without actually being a collection of them—it's somehow brilliant yet moronic, smart yet totally naive at the same time. You’ve got these incredibly brutal, ugly murder scenes, but the whole vibe stays firmly rooted in that teenage comedy territory.
The end result is honestly pretty charming. Hats off to them! 👍

JFK by Oliver Stone.

Arlington Road

Widowed When his FBI agent wife is killed in an FBI anti-terrorist operation goniti wrong, a college professor finds himself spiraling—not just from grief, but from an intense, growing obsession with the underground subcultures and radical cells lurking in the shadows. Then, a new family moves in next door—super friendly, totally gregarious, the kind of people who actually make you feel welcome—and they’ve got two kids that his son finally has someone to hang out with. It looks like things might be looking up; he's even starting to see someone new. But then, that nagging feeling kicks in. Something feels off about the neighbors—the way they guard certain rooms, or those blueprints just sitting there too visibly. Is he staring down a cell of domestic terrorists... or is the sheer weight of losing his wife just pushing him straight into full-blown paranoia?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0137363/

rustywalker42 said:I stumbled upon this interesting piece over on a pretty mediocre site, CNN:

What’s the consensus here? Do you think the author hit the nail on the head? Are we looking at a decade—maybe two—of mindless movies where the only real selling point is the 3D gimmick?

YES.
3D and IMAX aren't innovations—they're just carnival attractions.

3D only works if something is flying straight at your face, or maybe if the camera is swirling around something—but even then, it feels forced. If the scene is static, what's the actual point of the 3D?
Movies made specifically for IMAX and 3D theaters are going to lean entirely into being "spectacles" and "experiences."
When you combine that mindset with how the big Hollywood studios treat movies—basically treating them as products that need mass appeal at any cost—you end up with cheap thrills. We're talking about sensory overload filled with flashy scenes, explosions, and deafening noise, all designed to be forgotten the second the next big thing rolls around.