Posts by Jessica Nguyen85

Fighting Club

I feel like you’d be such an interesting subject for a quote... or, well... more like... what kind of personal connection do you actually have with this movie? Just curious... let's hear it...

Honestly, this whole topic is kind of a wash 🙂

😉

But over here, this link is actually pretty great even if it's missing some specific movie stats.

I mean, I don't get how anyone could actually compare Gilliam to Burton...

I never really saw them as being compared. It’s more just that this movie shares that same atmospheric, fairy-tale vibe you find in Sleepy Hollow. Maybe the main difference is that Sleepy Hollow is a bit darker, more mysterious, whereas Grimm Bros. leans harder into the FX. And obviously, there's the whole thing where Ledger and Damon aren't even in the same league as Depp, but that's a whole different conversation.

A-haaaa... so, I guess the whole point of this thread is to show how Hannah Edwards is... what's the word... a total flip-flopper. Which, let’s be honest, is just one more thing on the long list of traits people love to pin on liberals these days...

I’m well aware there’s a certain "crowd" out there that loves digging through old posts just to smear someone's reputation... but when a moderator starts doing that? That’s a first for me.

The whole point here seems to be ironbadger31 demonstrating to the community how you can actually get away with insulting someone's family. Under specific circumstances, of course. And depending on which user you happen to be.

Given the "evidence" the OP is throwing around, I suspect the real goal is just highlighting some perceived leftist bias—even if it's pretty obvious to everyone that Action was mostly just being rhetorical rather than actually attacking anyone in the heat of the debate.

I mean, once you've established this supposed political bias, there’s always this need to balance the scales, right? So certain right-wing outbursts somehow pass without consequence. (Hint: just swearing isn't enough to get you banned, apparently.)

Still, a clever little setup. 👍

It’s most useful when you need to prove that the "leftist" crowd is just a transparent, hypocritical, pathetic caricature of themselves.

What kind of "left" vs. "right" dynamic are we even talking about here, where every single political, social, or economic issue just boils down to—are you for Marshall or not?

And then they start tearing each other's throats out over it. 🙄

I don't really get the point of this thread... feels like some weird power trip... I'm just lost because... Akcija2 is rarely someone worth debating on Politics... yet here we are, with someone trying to go step-by-step to explain why she's such a mess and needs "professional help"... all sorts of nonsense... and on top of that, in LK too... 🙄

Man, Smudj is just out of control... we should probably move this over to the Miscellaneous forum before 😁 tries to give him some sort of diagnosis 🙄 😉
. Honestly, there's no point in digging up old dirt because everyone already sees it... especially since he's still pretty green in the movie scene, looking at you, indigo and Nicholas Hill5... it's just getting exhausting.

Man... it didn't exactly turn out how I wanted to portray the guy... and honestly, I used to have a lot of respect for the artist... but then I watched that documentary about the disaster during the filming of Don Quixote and now I'm just 🙏 ... plus, I kind of convinced myself I actually knew the man. So... yeah, gotta calm down 😉

I feel like we’ve already touched on this movie somewhere else.

Maybe... but my point is, I actually watched the film myself 😉 😳

So, I thought to myself, Gilliam—that lucid cinematic charmer—actually gets a chance to make something decent once in a while. Why not head out and see what he’s cooked up lately? Uh, there would be plenty on that list, so maybe better to just get into why one should actually go...

Two brothers, Jacob and William Grimm, spend their time making a buck off the superstitions of the common folk, all while jotting down those fantastic tales they’re supposedly experts in—stories of good and evil doom. But during one of their travels, they end up becoming part of a story where all those motifs we grew up with through their magical tales start intertwining. It’s actually quite interesting how Gilliam managed to stitch together a coherent whole; it loses its thread and concept at times, sure, but hey, it's fantasy, so anything goes. Traveling through a world built like this becomes a stylistic adventure with a few decent bits where laughter and fear swap places effectively, if predictably. Add to that a certain lack of charisma from the two leads, and you've got an interesting afternoon at the theater that you'll likely forget in less than 24 hours. I have to point out Peter Stormare's performance as the Italian officer; it was quite good. But when directors start pushing their own kids into their movies, you know the film is in trouble.

A lot of people on IMDb compare this movie to Sleepy Hollow, and they're right—SH was done much, MUCH better, with a far better sense of rhythm and storytelling. I expected a little more from Gilliam, honestly.

Rating: ** of *****.

On the thread What makes an art film an art film? I’ve got two posts regarding Greenaway if you're interested 😉

But I don't really get that claim. Is it some kind of post-structuralist reference?

In this thread there's a reference and a link to a famous essay by Greenaway—which is where my little ramblings... excuse me, my paraphrasing, come from. I think the essay is a brilliant take on film as an art form. The point being made suggests that movies can be something more than just illustrated text. It’s interesting stuff, though it doesn't mean I'm obsessed with Greenaway... just trying to broaden my horizons, I guess...

I'd highly recommend checking out http://petergreenaway.co.uk/ and reading through his Quotes.... for instance, my favorite "Cinema is not a playground for Sharon Stone." 😁

Well, you certainly picked a target to paraphrase.

Care to expand on that... or is just spitting on it enough for you? 😉

"Who said that back when we were just 'hooking up & making magic,' Brad and I didn't make a damn good movie?!!"

This is easily the best way to crash a thread I've ever seen... plus using Kung Fu Hustle as the actual subject matter... 🤣

To pull off an entrance like this, you really have to be what the Brits call 'wired'... honestly, it explains why lobotomies were such a hit in Anglo culture... 😉

You also need a sensitive cortex capable of firing off random electromagnetic impulses... which probably explains why they put microwaves in the kitchen in the first place 😉

On top of all that, it’s hard to stay indifferent toward certain films when the G-spot is located further south than usual... makes sense why she's so into Indian cuisine 😉

Seeing these recent "opinion" shifts brings back this one scene from The Sopranos Season 5. You know, when Sandra King86 😉 (Tony's wife, if you haven't seen it) tries to start this little film club. A few of the mob wives gather around to watch movies from the AFI list, and after they finish, Sandra King86 attempts to kick off some high-brow discussion about Citizen Kane. It’s all very tense and serious, but nobody is actually interested... until one woman suddenly pipes up with, "Hey, did you hear that so-and-so got a boob job?" And just like that, the whole thing goes off the rails and everyone starts shouting their two cents at once. 😉 😁

Gerald Barrett25, does that mean a lot of movies AREN'T actually based on books?

Yeah. You can always check the Oscars database at Oscars.org to see the list of nominees for the Original Screenplay category.

//ps. and ignore all that nonsense from Jose Miller17... ever since he started acting like some big-shot movie expert, he's just been trying to drive up his engagement numbers 😉 😁

Then again, I don't think it's just some blonde from Harvard or an American girl.

The question was really about the relationship between movie and book, rather than just "the movie" vs "the book"... right? 😉

Look... it's hard to pull out any statistical data that actually means anything here. The reality is that, according to Greenaway, a movie is basically just illustrated text. So, it makes sense that there are tons of adaptations of works that have already proven they work perfectly as a medium, which means there's a decent chance they'll work as a film too (take > for example). But on the flip side, you get this specific class of writers who only write screenplays because the format suits them, and they're already trained to think about how a script will translate to the screen (I'm immediately thinking of Allan Ball and his >).

When you're dealing with a book, though, you have to consider the form itself. Like, short stories make for the best foundation for a film because they provide those core plot elements. Everything else gets filled in based on the inspiration and vision of the director, along with the rest of the creative crew—let's say, the production designer, the costume designer, the composer. And sure, the producer usually has something to say, too. Novels and novellas are a bit more expansive, so you need to perform a kind of reductive adaptation. That’s serious work; you have to distill what’s essential to understanding the literary work into the constraints of film as a medium. A movie's success rests almost entirely on the ability—though not exclusively—of the screenwriter to adapt the story down to the "bare bones," much like a short story does. Of course, a novel or novella provides so much extra data and info that the creative team's job ends up being a bit easier.

It would be interesting to try and pick a successful literary work and see if it's already been adapted within this last century of film. Maybe a few times... maybe not at all.

It looks like the dim-witted Republicans outsmarted the brilliant Democrats. What kind of world are we living in?

The Republicans aren't actually stupid, per se, but their advantages run a bit deeper than that... specifically, the Democratic Party has traditionally been the one driving social progress in the US. It’s just how things work; anyone trying to push for positive change in any group faces resistance. Usually, the general public identifies with one clear political initiative rather than obsessing over some complex party platform or detailed program. So, you can't just wander around claiming to support same-sex marriage while calling Bush an idiot—it follows a certain logic where if people don't agree on one point without much thought, they tend to reject everything else. Besides, the Democratic Party isn't nearly as consistent or homogeneous as the Republicans; there's a massive spectrum of views and beliefs within it, whereas the Republicans basically rely on a few simple mantras. A quick look at internal primaries tells the whole story: Republican contests often devolve into mudslinging against specific personalities (like watching how Bush secured the nomination back in 2000 over McCain), while Democrats focus on carefully calculating a policy agenda designed to guarantee the widest possible support (take Kerry's nomination in 2004, for instance). Oh, and incidentally, there's only really one president who wasn't from a Southern state—and he ended up being assassinated.

Regarding one of the messages from Moore's film—terrorism is an ideology, not a nation.

So, let's say everything is just pointless. Let's say there isn't a single positive option left in today's world, that nothing but thugs and criminals are calling the shots, and no matter what anyone does, there’s zero hope for things to get better. In that case, you might as well end it all right now—and hey, it wouldn't hurt to take a few of those jerks standing around you down with you first.

Woah... Nelly 😲 Well, now we know where all those suicide bombers get their inspiration from 🙄

Man, you really can't read everything on this forum. And here I was thinking the Politics sub-forum was just a little corner for those basement-dwelling, antisocial, depressingly pessimistic types who think they have a monopoly on how reality works... turns out it's just a general lack of basic human decency everywhere.

It’s actually pretty jarring to see such a total lack of impulse control, or any concern for the weight of making such sweeping, final "judgments" like the one above. Though, knowing the author, it feels less like a genuine expression of the nausea and despair that this kind of realization usually triggers, and more like just a bit of voluntary, projected grandstanding.

Look, bias is bias. It doesn't matter how you dress it up.

And honestly... it’s a pretty short walk from being a strict formalist to becoming a total nihilist. 😉