Posts by Joshua Sanchez69

Jeffrey Castillo95 said:Sure, people claim Opera is the fastest... please, what kind of nonsense is that? If you go to the Apple site, they'll tell you Safari is king. If you hit up Mozilla, they’ll swear by Mozilla. Everyone has their own little story...

I'm not sure about page load speeds, but try zooming in on a page in Opera versus any other browser and see how much of a difference there is. I zoom in quite often, so that smooth experience actually matters to me.

Plus, I really don't have the patience to install ten or fifteen different plugins just to get a browser to act halfway like Opera (and most of those need tweaking anyway). Sure, tools like Firebug in Firefox are absolute lifesavers, but when I'm just looking for a solid, reliable browser, I don't have the energy for all the Firefox hassle.

wanderingscout13 said:I really love Firefox, especially how it handles tabs. It doesn't automatically jump focus to a new page when you "open link in New Tab," which is such a headache in Internet Explorer or Opera (or at least, I haven't found a way to fix that in Opera yet).
I still fire up Internet Explorer every once in a while just to make sure a site looks right compared to how it behaves in Firefox, but I don't even have Opera installed on my machine anymore.

opera - open in background Tab

Caught this one last night. Honestly, it’s easily my favorite Pixar movie so far. Even the voice acting—which usually isn't my thing—was spot on (the main mouse's dad reminds me so much of a classic old-school jazz legend 🙂). Definitely worth a watch if you get the chance.

wiredranger30 said:
No need to "quote-spam" the whole thing.

You're right, everything tends to aim for being better, faster, or bigger than what came before—it's happening in every part of life, just like you said. But hasn't it always been that way?😕 I think it’s nothing new. Maybe the only real difference today is the sheer speed of it all. We live at such a frantic pace now, so everything happens much faster. Take movies, for example: it took the film Terminator twenty years to get to its third installment, whereas Spider-Man managed it in maybe two or three. But both franchises were still trying to outdo their predecessors, weren't they? My point is, what you said is true, but it isn't a new phenomenon. It's always been this way and always will be. So, personally, I don't see the point in stressing over it.

The only thing that bugs me about all this is how few movies actually fit my taste lately. Most of them are either massive blockbusters that try way too hard to be "cool" or "epic," which gets boring fast, or they're those "prestige" films that try desperately to be deep. It feels like there aren't many movies left that just try to... be movies. You know, just tell a story regardless of the genre. Instead, I feel like I'm constantly watching something designed specifically to please an audience or a director trying to show off how smart they are (which, in 99.9% of cases, ends up being so depressing and dark you'd practically need a therapist after watching).

redowl90 said:I'm not really sure why people think there are too many characters. Let's break it down...

Jim Caviezel (basically Witt's private) is essentially the lead here.
Sean Penn plays the other main guy—the dynamic between him and Witt is written so well, and honestly, I don't see the issue with their backstories at all...

Nick Nolte & Elias Koetas (if I have the name right, he plays Staros)—their connection is also masterfully directed and explained (especially that part—which was my favorite bit—where Nolte pushes Elias to charge that hill with everything he's got). That arc wraps up when Staros settles his command issues and finally heads home to escape the madness...

Ben Chaplin—his storyline is actually my favorite. You really feel for the guy because he's just thinking about getting back to his wife, only for her to leave him for some pilot at the end (I'm not entirely sure about the details el duderino mentioned, that was just my first impression of her character)...

When you add in the incredible cinematography (honestly, I'll never understand why that didn't win an Oscar) and the stunning locations, you've got something beautiful—a total visual feast...

👍 👍

redowl90 said:Pretentious? I wouldn't say so, though I get why people attack it for that. Boring? Not for me. After watching it, I actually felt bad for the six and a half hours of footage left on the cutting room floor—meanwhile, my buddy was cursing out the movie because of "what kind of fucking stupid ending is this?"...

I heard somewhere that Mallick wanted to release a DVD with six hours of footage, but it looks like that's not happening... such a shame. Even so, this is one of my favorites; the whole experience is perfect for me, from the characters and atmosphere to the pacing, visuals, and score. Only one other movie hits me quite like this one—it's almost hypnotic—and that's Kurosawa's Ran.

"How did we loose good that was given us? Or let it slip away. Scatter it carelessly into the wind... trade it for what has no worth"

I only watched Audition and it just didn't do anything for me. It felt slow and dragging to the point of frustration (though I don't usually mind a slower pace if there's actually a plot happening). Since I've heard this is supposed to be one of his best works, I'm feeling pretty skeptical about his "artistry."